Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats

Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive 

in 2010 witli funding from 

CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Researcli Libraries in Illinois 

' r ' ' ' & CL i 



Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day of April, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and 
twenty, within and for the Second District of the State of 
Illinois: / 

Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres idin/ Jus t i ce . 


\Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice*^- 

'■■ / 

riiOn. OSCAR E. HEARD, Justice^' 

ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk. / 

CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff. / 

^1'9 i-A; o S-3J 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that aftirwards, to-wit: on 


the opinion/of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figrures 
following-, to-wi t : 

No, 6767. 

Clarenoe Higglr^a, by Grao* 
Higglni, Conservator, 

DefenrtAnt in Error, 
Midland Camialty Company, 

Error to Winnebago, 

Plaintiff in Krror. ) 2X9 l.A. \> d O 

Opinion 'by DIRELL,P. J. 

It 1b olalrcert by plaintiff th:tt while he waH autlnga* 
polio eman on the etreete of the City of i'ockfOTu or. June 4, 
1912, he •uffered a eunatroke and ther«by heoairje aieabled 
from work and afterward* Insane therefrom, ana thut there- 
by a liability wa»» created unlar an aooldant ln»urar.o« policy 
leru^d to hla by defendant on June ^0, -312, Through hie 
cons'irvator he brought tola avilt. The trial cou^-t direct- 

ed a verdict for defendant, from which plaintiff ai'.;«aled to 
thie oourt, *ind we affirmed the juljnient in Hlggin* v, 
midland Caeualty Co., 305 111. Acp. 150, The suprerce 

oourt reversed the judgment In Illssine v. i^ldland Cajualty 
Co., 381 111. 431, an^i remanded the oauee to the circuit 
oourt There another trlsj. wa3 had ^tnd plaintiff had 

a verdict and a judgment for tS,COO, fron. vvhich defendant 
proeecutes this writ of error. 

T^efendant filed a plea oi non-aeeuEpeit and four 
special pleas. The first upeotial' plea vras that 

plaintiff was not continuously unable to perform any of his 
business duties, as the declaration alleged and the policy 


.TaV8 .oK 


e-j^ii' v-.i jtalgsJtH 8onbiJ»i-v 


. o-^iid^aai^ orf xo«3 


8 8 0.A.IeXS ^ .^--- .^ ^ll.rri^XCT 

•M^i^oM SAW trf eXl/lw ;fjeff^ \1i.'x.x^^.i, ^6 bBoitBlo ax ^I 

^^ exu/L au liio'iiooH lo y^iO •ii;f )o ateei^a siij- no a«niooiXoq 

-eatrf* uiirf* fertji ^I'totleTftri* sttJi^ni %htainB9tM baa :taow wail 

YoiXoq ^uciMiuual itfbtoos tiM iBbau bt^i&Bto «£W ■%ilii€Mii s ycT 

• Iri rfgifuirfT ,8XG1 ^06 »ni;T. no ?rt,abn»1et ^cf ain tJ t^im^i 

•a«iqi/f eriT .081 .qqA .XXI -- ,.oO Y*-t«.u».sO t>n«Xfci>f 

*Jtx;oiio »ilj oi 99UJ60 oAf bBbajm9-x bn« ^.-. .-II X86 ,.-- 
tjBrf llijaijsiq Ltt/i bMd R«w Xslt^ leAtcna «. ^ .tfiirpo 

■.;qt ;f»ii'l t \ , ^9Xq XAios:ie 

X-faruj YX»jjcjyni*rto.. . . /.v lliJii. _ , 


required to create a liability. The seoond speoial plea 

denied that plaintiff gave defendant a notice aa eoon ae 
poeaible, aa the olloy required. The third epeoial plea 

waa thiit by the etatement ei^ed by plaintiff and attached 
to the policy he warrant«rt that his habitt of life ware cor- 
rect and th-'t he wa« in aound condition, mentally and phyai- 
cally, -fhereae hie hablta of life were not then correct and 
toaperate and he wae not then in aound condition, mentally 
anl phyaioally, but hs was at the time the policy waa leeued 
and had "been for a long epaoe of time addicted to the exoee- 
•ive uae of intoxicating liquor and to other exoeeeea, of 
which defendant had no knowledge. The fourth BFeclal 

plea alleijed that plaintiff hed received rredlcai treatment 
oomtrary to hie warranty, etc. Plaintiff filed replioat- 

lone to said plaae on february 36, 1916, and or the eajrie day 
a derurrer waa filed to aaid replloatione, So far ae we 

can n«certeln in thl« record that dernirrer waa never *cted 
on nor waa ^eave asked to file other replloatlone, but on 
February 38, 1916, plaintiff filed aix other replicationa, 
which we aeeuwe wae an abandonr.ont of the previoua repli- 
cation*. The flrat was a •lirllltor to the general iaaue. 
The aeoond wa : to the firiait epecial plea and alleged that 
plaintiff waa oontlnuoualy unable to perform hie bualnee* 
dutlea. The third replication ''aa to the second special 
plea and alleged that notice wa/. given by the oonaervator ae 
Boon ae poaeible and eet up the facte •xoubIit^ the temporary 
delay. The fourth replication was to the third apecial 
plea and alleged that plaintiff waa of temperate hablte and 
;raa in aound condition mentally and phyeically and not 


•J3 no0» ajB eoi*on « ifajBtnelet avjss lllJ-fllalq iJ'^ri,* foelrtefc 
jteXq XisJtoeq* Mi (13^ affT ,|)eiix/p»T ^oiXo »rf* bjb ^s/rfi^soq 

-100 ©Tew eliX 1o •*io«d elrt ^Arf* fte^rtartjsw erf ^olloq 

-liyriq tSM YXXi3:fn9in ^iroltltnoo Jbnc -yd i^At brc 

tuA tottio9 ne>At ton ©lew elJtX ^o ■*lcf«n tiff •Jsetterfv ^x-C-tJBo 

VXXisJndai ^aotiibaoo baaot rcX n»rf* *on bobw erf fcn« ©;tjE5'ia<pc6^ 

itjewtBj: sjavi xolioq erf* aoil^f oriJ &» ms^ (»rf ctx/cf »YXXj80ieYrfq ttis 

-•90xe srfJ oj bd*oi^fc« eml* lo ©o^q« s^oX j9 tol neetf Jbjsrf Jbn* 

T»aoxe rstito o >t/piX grrit«oixo*ni lo eBif •▼!• 

Xjbioeq* rfitir/ol ©rfT .ssbel^oni on Jb«rf tnjsfcrrtleJb rfoiriw 

vat e.iusa arf* ao l)n.e ,dXPi ^SS Y'^siritf®'^ ''O «««Iq Jf>i£ 

ev; s.T tbI . ToiJaolXcrei bijsa o;f I)dXil *jiw t9niu.%9f> m 

b9;fo# i9V8n »«w TetcijarntJb *.grf3" Moosi; »lrf* ni niJttt909A ttMO 
no ;tacf ^anoitaoil to elJtt o* heiajs svj9©% nav ttt to 

^•noiJfloiXqerr T?-f?o xi» i;.©xn «i;fnliiXq ^aXGI ;8S va^irxcf©'? 
-IXqeT «iroJtT9tq ©rft lo tataanobaMdA an •«•■ ©!»«;••£ ©p. rfolrfw 
,e.c/»©i X.gtsn-- -rim ,4^ 

tiirft is^elijj /«« jipiq AJsio©fia IbtI^ bA& of -w Jbnoo©K ©fl'^ 

• •©niax."^ ^XcTbiti; Y-C«x/Oi^ffi*noo a«if \Jtialxlq, 

Xisiceqn i3uoo&. 8il3 oit saw noicfjfoXXqe^t JJjmri;^ ©rfT .•i©i;^irfc 

•-6 «^^ ■ T:? bejeXiJB i ajB jeeXq 

T»«^c : ;a beta ©Idt^tcq •£ nco© 

•^^■^ j.voii%i©i rf*it/ol ©rfT .YJsXet 

I5n« tiicr^rl t l^nljBlq *jwl* f»©8©IX« ^a• «»Xq 

*oft jtiflis v-i-^-^o-iwYrfq LiiA YlXjii-fteffl noiifiJtinoo hauo© nJ: •«« 


affeoted vrlt^ the ilter-f&e therclr rpsc If iad, T>e fifth 

repllofttion ^9.p to the foiirth •pedal plea ani trav^reed Ita 
allersitlons and,*v»rred tVe plairtJ.ff rat rot 111 of the 
dl B8R«ei» thereir. upeolfled. The wlxth replicptl'^n wae to 

all the plea* and eet up ft ^rest ler-j^th the raymer.t by the 
oonaervator to the authorized collector of deferdart with 
the aj^.roval of ite msnafer of ^ ^ertslr preriur or; eald 
pclioy juet b'=!fore thle »vlt i»Hr ptprted, and '^Ith full 
knowledge ^y feuld oollector and by «aid ranafer of ?11 the 
faot» det up Ir. said r.'.efw, and thl« ^p9 alleged to be a iralv» 
•r of thoae defonoee. Thle nles. oonoludart with e verifi- 

cation and there nhoiad have been a epeoial re;) cinder thereto 
by dQfendant, No rejoindftr was fllad. Ag leiendant 

went to trial voluntarily V.9 caafl 1? treated aa If iaaue had 
been jolne-*. orally to e^ild pl*a. f^ur"^©*^© Court of Honor v. 

Barker, 96 in. a -p. 490; iPlttei«an Co. v. Ooeke, BOO 111. 
App. 1C8, 114; Potior v. .-.^t. live •^tooV Ina. Co., 300 111. 
Api: , 280, ?85, and oaaee thsre olt3'i.. 

jhsre la eviiancf) ttrnMry^y to ohow thp.t plaintiff waa 
^iunatruok on the day In question -.Thile In the perforirance of 
M« lutlea ?.a pollceraan, and thet, although kept uccn the 
pw.rroi-L for A xon'5 time, he -tbi 30 aarlouaiy af footed ty tte 
aunatroke that h« could rot render affective aervioee and 
that lie finally becane inaare, Thsre 1^9 evidence 

tending: to ahcv that he waa not annatruok, but waa Buffering 
fror-. the affect a of Intoxication, There ^aa evidence 
tendlnj; to »ho«T thet he had been adlloted to t'-e usa of intox- 
icating liquor at the time thle policy wae iaaued, and other 
evidence to the oontrary. One of the oleaa aet up. 


erf^ ^o XX.J tort •■sw ^l.ttt^jtl^j •(!* h^ttrvir* bttJt •rrpi^BpeXXjs 

adf Y*^ tnerrrjaq »rft 'ft^nrwr t.99r^ ^m hnrs sitoXq erf* lis 

dilff fn.ebttt\Bb J.o to*o«XXoo haaXiorf^xwr »rft o.t »o**v^9«fraro 

fiii?e TO '^'•/i to rte-gaafl.-i <rft 

LtsA /ltX'» fcftfl ,5B*T»t«» -^''w tta» iM* »ao^»rf *»crt "^alioq 

erf? •te^.e/t^m bi;»p yc^ ^'-I-'* 5<i*oeXXoo Jbtwft vrf »]Bfc«Xwo«3t 

-irlMr M »cf oi be^^aXX.R ^ea ft^ojil; 

-tliiiav ^•tlirXo^roo jee.Cq fiffT ,•flafr•'^»^ aeorfJ 

o^tTcerf* TC8l>nJto(;i»i laipsqe « .ie?erf »7jerf hrrrorfu oij^rf* '< 

b«rf exiael ^1 sja ^e*■B^•Tt ai «»«o e'f* YiJt«>fiv*«wX')v x<?i' tfc 

.7 lonoH "^o *TfioO 9r<t9Trjf. t \'XX#?»o .^ftitiot aeerf 

• XXI OOf? ,03feo.' rr8.«ie#:' "?^ .craA .XXT 36 »T»3r::j8« 

,XXI 008 , oo^r? ^viT .^B^ .V tfXJwR i>XX ,80£ .qqk 

.bBtlf> .^9^ ^085 . rqA 

lo eonantoT^Teq •rf* rrl ©Xtrfr itoi*8ewp al ^Jifc arfJ nro jltunimnssn 
•Hi ^^uorf*i0 ,tsrf' ,t«Bj»oJtIcq «^ eeiti/fc »i<f 

tirjB eeolTTfie evJtJoelT:© teJbnfiT Jort |)Xf/oo «»rf *J3riJ »;{oi**i(ij;/e 

eonehXva .ertaeni srmoen ^X-^'B^-* <*rf *i9if4" 

•«o*/ii r-,srf ail Jerf* worfe off jtfiJtbntJ 

«-^' otZoq, mtift »nii 9di ijs touplL "sntimoi 


among the atateiTient* upon which this policy ^aa istvved, that 
plaintiff had had aiedical attendance. There wa» proof 

that he had heen mo actenled once at his hcuae and tii:At he had 

visited the a£a>.d i-hyaician t^-ioe at his office, -^ha evi- 
dence la auch en theoe queetlone that tc support a verdlot 
either way, the jury ehould have been properly instructed. 

By the fifth Inetruction, .^iven e.t the request cf 
plaintiff, the jury were told that if Higgln» »uffered a 
ounatroke while acting ae pollc6wan and if »aid eunetroke 
was due to hie expoeure to the eun in the performanoe of hie 
ordinary dutlee and if he wa« from th<r.t date rendered oontin- 
uoualy unable to perforin any of hia ■husineaa duties, end If 
notice 'flras given to defendant within a reaaonable tiu.e after 
the injury, then plaintiff waa entitled to recover, Thie 
Ignorea the evidence tending to ahow that hia habit* of life 
were not correct and temperate when the policy waa iaaued, 
but thiit he, wae addicted to the ixoesaive uae of Intoxicat- 
ing liquors, and aiao the evidence tending to ahcv. that hia 
statement that he had not received medical ittenttlon was 
untruso The el??ht Inatruction given at the request of 
plaintiff told the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to 
recover under the oondltione therein stated, and It omitted 
all reference to the subjecte also omitted frort instruction 
V.o, 5o We find It Inpoeelble to sustain a verdict for 
plaintiff based on those two Instructions, 

defendant complains of the refusal of five inatructions 
requested by It, None of these Instructions made any 
reference to the replication concerning waiver of the defences 


toe. ,»orf«fcrr©;f*a lAoJJbd.ia fc^rf i)«rf 11i*nijbXq 

-jVtt - .- :isloii^y[d^ d..u3i& ©ilJ baJlaiv 

joil -Rrf* »noi;J-s©jiP ©eeri.^ no rfoy© ai 9on©fc 

^fc»v ..... sfid ©v^ Mifoifs YTx/t erfd" lY** Terf;tl© 

- __:_- ..- rxx/c ©riit ^tTild-nijsIq 

BiO'xtMain bls.7 __ _..g n^jMeoJUoq . , toj5 slirfw ©;foa*Bcix/8 

■ X/( lo ©on^Bcoao^iaci Bl■f;^ al nt/a 6df of ©tcosoqx© slrf o* ©i/fc 6J3t- 

a©rtistr- , iJ eltfaau '^tuuoa 

• iffT ^Tevoos'. ili;fni*Xq ti©rf;t jY^j^rtfli ©rf* 

s!tJtI 1'. .Jt.-f^i-f t t •§r.lba&i ©caefciT© ©rf* t©ioaji 

'■' ' r^i 

"t^GOir? j-.ti "io aau ©vls^aox* ©a. ^*oil)x)a ©xjk ©rf taA^ iifd 

• i u.'tn9:^ ©on©fciv© ©ff:t 0iXj5 Jbna .©ttowplX :ittl 

.•,;<! ft9vi©o©'.i ri ©ri tsAi Jn©ffl©*jBJ^© 

Ic j-"«r.Tet srfit *i? rc©vls flOJt*Oirt*»ni *ri^l© ©riT .©ifxinx; 

Jttnijjrq ©ri* *jBrf* Y^yt ^^^ JbXoJ l!li*ni«Xq 

b9ttt. alenedt %aotiibnoo ©ri* fhav r^robtt 

itottt itttno o©X£> ©Joetcfu© sdi oi ©on©^9l©T XXjs 

TOl ;foiJbTt9V « nia^py© oJ 8Xcfl©©oqB!l fl bai\ ©W «a .oW 

.s»^' •tc.rnlpn.f ow# ©soriit no f»a€ WtiaiJiL^i 

»nox;>Of LjaXqaioo *n4ih(i©t©r 

• ^j»"©jwt(»ni !»«i©rii lo ©fioK .;fl y(cf Jb©J»ejjp©i 

;on©^©^ ©ri. ..i7i80noo noi*.?oJtXq©i ©rfJ o* ©on©i:©l©T 

If th«ra is any Bvidence in the reoordtfalrly tending to .how 
suoh a waiver, th^as in.tmotione *are properly r«,fuaed. 

Th. record Is 1VS« •«<* *^« '^'^t'^^^^* ^" ^'^•'' *'''^ ''''' 
attention i» not called to ^ny evidence in support of the 

replication oonoernlnp- waiver. jf there ie no such evi- 

dence, then thpt aatter Jfaa not required to be noticed in 
Inetructionio The first of theae refuwed instruotlona was 
baaed in part upon the proposition that the Jviry telleved 
froit the evidence th«.t plaintiff* o hp>iita of life were not 
correct, it did not crlve e.ny lnforn:«.ticn to the jury as 

to whrt was meant by habit a of life or by the word "Correct" 
Fe thint. th'jt part of the in at ruction ahould not have been 
given without •omethlner to inforn. the jury tvhat wpib maant by 
that term. There ia an inatruotlve oieousBlor of this 

eub^ect in Ins. Co. v. Foley, 105 U, S. >50. The rest of 
the Inetructicn *aa correct „ The eeccnd refused instruct- 

ion was to the effect that if plAintlff iid suffer sun-atroke 
in some degree, atlll if it did not reader hie oontinuoualy 
unable to perform hie buslneaa duties and he did thereafter 
contlnucuoly perfor» duties aa a policeman, there coula be 
no reooveryo ^e think this too qrereral. Plaintiff 

did perform aome dutiee aa poiloeman thereafter ard waa 
pern.itted to endeavor ro do ao for some ooneiderable time, 
but there ia evi-^.enoe teniir* to aho^ thiit he 'tr-s not 
really competernt to do thla, ^9 think the instruction 

was too general and waa properly refused. The nairie 

Bugseationa apply to the third rofuaed in«truotion. 
The f^rth refueed inatruotlon was to the effect th-^t if 
within seven yeara prior to the ieauance of the policy. 


worfs of gnlJbnect yitJiJi'ip'xoc , j^ed^ ^^t 

-*jiV!^ -1^.7. tntisonoo noi*j|oiIq*« 

.li Jbsoitort H(i ot feaiiix/pi'x iton 8J9V 19^ fm^ *prf* rtsriJ ^sorre*^ 

ioa •!: UaijiXq *»rf;^ •orrdfjiva erf; 

ajB ^rui notijurnxoycil ^na *vJ!^ ton hi 

aatscf ax' otrx^anl arf;f "io tTJsq J-eri;^ dW 

Ycf tfrt'- ^rfJ larolflX o.t snlrf ^saioa tyorlJlw tiQrtv 

%ld;T "io noXaawoaib 9vi;rotn*a/ti ns •! tTarfT .n^aiJ' iterfl b^iruAsi Jbaooaa e "oaTtoo bjb* rroJttfoxrrJ'en.t acf* 

©ioi*a- i^atalq i/ ^sd* toalle art* 0* sjjw no.^ 

YXai/o«al;fnoo alri taJbJts^ cb Jl t| XXl^a ,0air^8fc anoa al 

«a#l3i»i8/fj JbiJb arf JbntjB asi^J^uti aaanlai/cf eirf m^oliaq 0* aXrfjinxr 

fieoXXoq ji a^ m^ttut) awoliaq v-CoxrownX^rroo 

lix?! !££«=? .Xx-'T^.Tar oot elfi? ^rrXrf* a^ .yiavooat on 

aoXXoq ai9 •aX:f'jut> anoa orxotttaq bib 
^»a±& eid^r 08 Ob ot ^ov^aJbne o;}- te&tlsivtn^ 

'''trn& aone/' Xva aX aTarf* fu^ 
'""^i .aid* oX) o* &nie^Bzinoo ^ilMmi 

-'aqoiq tiscm bns Xjia^neji oc* aar 

.t yXqqjB anoX^tfa^^xxa 

'■ 'tom&ftat b9»ut9t ci&'^J. ariT 

t'?° ftonj8;/eaX arftf" o;t ttoiiq eT««Y fiavee /rXrfitXw 


plaintiff recolvscl Kadloal or durgloa.! attsntion froir any 

physician or siirpjeor., than there could "he no recovery, Ae 

already etnted, plaintiff had during that period beer vlelted 

onoe at hie home by a phyelolan and had bean treated by him 

tvTloe at hi» office. We are of the opinion th5.t under what 

we aald in paymer v. Modern ^rotherhood of America, 157 111. 

App. 510, on p, r34, thlt* Instruction wae too Indefinite, 

although it rcay be that the plaintiff should have had itome 

pleading by which he denied epeolflcally theit this eto-tement 

in the application was a warranty* The fifth refused 

inetruction set out the etatenent contained in the application 

that his hablte of life were correct and temperate, that he 

had never bean eubjaot to certain diaeaaee and th^t he *a» 

in sound condition, mentally and physically, and told the jury 

that if plaintiff was not a peraon of correct and teir.perate 

hablte, they rcuet find for defendant. Thia inetruction did 

not define what wae meant by correct and terr.perate hablte and 

vaa therefore faulty, ae eu^c;eeted with reference to refused 

Instruction No. 1, The paragraph from the application set 

out in said instruoticn is subject tc the ausrgestion made by us 

in purnar v, brotherhood of Ait, Yeoren, 154 111, App. 27, on 

pp. 3<-36 an'i in Clover v. Modern Woodmen of Arerloa, 142 111. 

App 376. It may be thet to raiee thie queetion plaintiff 

should have had eoire pleading denying th?.t thsBe were warrantl* 
and setting up that they were made In good faith eto, 
rcr sjrror Ir niiving inHtniotloue 5 ar i 6, re^iueeted by plain- 
tiff, the judgment is revereed ard the cause rsmandedo 


ttA , )"r»voo9i on »n bix/oo 9Tt<f(} fl»rf? ,a08;3Xif» to rtJBJtoldifrfq 

jb»*i«iv rrsftor boil© 5 i»!iS gaiitBb i^Ad lHifnl«Xq ^t>f*«i*« ^^»9%JLa 

atd -{d t9t.96tf .itscf bJid hcijs a^lols^ifq « >[cf aaod sIjcI t4 tono 

;r4((ir Taijou *£ri* noJtaiqo orf^ lo wia o'i' .eoillo airl J^a eoiwt 

.XII V2X .js&JiietfiA lo t)QQ!itedior„ ax«i)OU .v lajsyaff nJt t^jea ©^ 

^tt^Inilal)ni ootf q«w rroX}Oirc;fenl etA& ^^^- .q no ^QX8 .QqA 

atsot i^n avjsil oXjjorla fiUnixlq adS ind^ acT "{jmr ti d'^uodSia 

^aaoji jiJ J.^rf* ^XXjoJtlloeqe fieinafc «ci rfoXrfw vcf ^xiiAasXq 

Jbakui&i iUlXl adT ^^^^njgxocBW « aAvc aoxd'«QXXqq« a^;^ ni 

noi^jsolXqqjB ad^ ai benijs^frioo J'xiaiaaifB^fa 9dt tjjo d-es ooitoxnci^eai 

til isdi ^etjiz»<isii%t baa ^oattzoo aaaw aliX ^o BildM sid &^iii 

i9BS9Bib tti«S%»o ot to9l<S:jB need xa^aii bad 

X^^l ^<' ^-i-oii laji ^H^^^o^'i'^^'i i>o* xi^*'^"^!^ ^aolttbnoQ Ijnuoa at 

a^tjBiaqiTie^ bcijs Toattoo 'io aoorcaq « iToa aaw llli^ni' 

bib nomoLniital eJtffT .JaAbnsxaf) lol Jt>nl\ d'»«9i yeilj ,«;rXa*:i 

j^w a" ^aieqifla^ oa« (t^oa^ioo ^d ;^ix«a.-n a;Bw ^jsdw anl^aJb toct 

bvaul^x 0^ aoaaialaiE rf^iw ta^at^sjva 8« ^^^^^'^^ axo^a^adt sjbv 

^at aoitsoilqq^m »di aotJ dqaTSAxaq arf'^ ,ol/l nolfw^i^al 

vaY .oA v.. Lujrfaadd-orr' , 
rXiX ^*X ^vtCiitt.aA io ij*:iii;Ou"-V aiaiiOiS ,v lavoiO al i>a*i dC-^^L .^q 
ll^j^iYiAXq noi^sex/p aXd;r aeXjit oJ- ^jsilcT ft- . 5qA 

»•■.■*v^■■:..; .f.-io '^in;-^; ■'St,-:yv6i «1 tftajig^^y;, t*". ~' ■ » 



SECOND DISTRICT. ( ^^' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFY, Clerk of the Appellate 

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in m}- office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this . 

day of in the year of our Lord one 

thousand nine hundred and 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

^ (-{ ^-.^^iA^ Q^/^/fi 



Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, th/ sixth day of April, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and 
twenty, within and for the Second y6is trie t of the State of 
Illinois: \ 

nd i 


Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL , /Pres id ing Just ice, 

\ / 

Hon\ JOHN M. NIEHAUSf, Justice. 

\ / 

Hon .\ OSCAR E. HEARp , Justice. 

ARTHIJR E. SNOW, qlerk. 


CURT S. AYERS, g'her 

'" 2191-%^^^ 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on 
Jul i the opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following, to-wit : 

Gen. ;,c;. 6774 

Tlio Pc'ople ci" t'riC ?ti'.t6 cf 

Ixiluoiu. Dfifoniau!; ir. error, 

va • Frrcr to Co. Ct» DuPagc, 

Mux Fenakr', Pla-intli'* in errcr. 

Dib.ii. p. J. 219 I. A. 63 3 

Ti.o Etiitea Attorney of DuFa^gc Coui^ty fileJ 2.1. irfcr r.c.ticn 
ia the County Covu-t iig&.iiibt itstx Ftusky, oh-arglng aitti with selling 
lntoxi.o4.tir.g ilnUorB in vioi^^tion.: of the Act Cl* 1SS7 pre;; ibl *:ing; 
the aala of auoh iiquori outaxis of iiuor'^oratei .-jl^-lec, vii:'%goa ^cvmta in 3.:iy Itieu Quantity five g;illon«, an i in -zha 
origiiia-i. p<*oltagB ua put up oy 'ciib .ranufaoturdr . !:3 wr^j iirlsl by a 
j-ry ^iua convioto^ >*ji-i sentoriO-a, ^.ni rorsovsl ths o^uan to tn« 
suoreciQ court by a writ ol arior. T i«-*. court ^ranifsmd the oau«e 
to this ooxjirt. ?p-o:<ls v J'eurjky, o90 111* Gi3. 

T'ife inioririation ^b-n varified Oy the St^tii''. Attorney "uoc.i 
infer nation ux -l belief". Dsleri-iaiit a.0V6a. to ciuasa t.,a iafor/ratlon 
and £.160 i"ll«a*ca. .-ioneral ^nji i»p'5t!iAi ieaurror thersto r.l to each 
oount. The lootion t.o quaah ffae ovorruiad ..\.r.l ^he i^rrrarrcr '.sa over- 
ruled. E;y leave 01 court the'Stutsse Attorney t len a.-'?:-'nded eaoh 
oount or •'-he information oy inserting in ai.propriate pl:-cee in 
daoh oount t'lt foiiCAing: "Tne said lic»uor aula u.b afcrcuikid brjing 
then und iherc in lasr. ^uiLntitiee "..ah Tivf ^.IIods." Dcf enfant 
then wovtjd to quauh the a.rceiidfed iniormsttion i».n.4 shortly thereafte'^ 
witnarcw triat motion. He iilleu j, pxea of forriar conviction. The 
'Jttitea Attorney domwirred to *.^^At, plea, c-u i •. ? iomorrtr -vaa tua- 
tained, T:)at pxau id uCv but out in the s-.batraot anl therefore ita 
9uifioio:ioy is not j^reeented for oou«li jrution. D^fenJant r«fu«ei 
Co pluai ioi'ther bux atuod muto, j^- ohe court ori'ired a plaa of 
not gui-ty to d: entiertsd, ana v...^ oa^ • on the 

argurt.ent in arrast of juirjiaent after the verdlot, defendant's 

.: .T 

,:iv^']iJ<i *J-0 .j:j OJ- -iOTi ' 

8 88 

.n f 

o ^a^' 

,effoXXjPT; av - 

liTOO &ii(''T ,1C 

'Tiu/o i' 

iTtJ ... 

dr..-.: f, Ot ■'. 

■ii&^mto''tffi 9x1 1^ 'lO ?njuoc 


.>xXu^ :^oa 

a*torney stated trat he had ^uat learnel that *-he infom-ation 
iiaJ. b«en arnenied, bu*-. +'i«» bill cf ftxoei^tions nln-inly «ihc\.VB that 
'.-■egore he entavai hla iaotion tu qaf-^sh •'he InforTation ...b . 'lended, 
ha fuly undoratoQil that it lu».d be^n ■a.mtrndaci. ?>.« £.ttcrne3' who 
repressntai Ah defeniunt &t +^^!\« trial ioea not anpe&.i- upon ohe 
brief hero. The original inforrrtation a orime under the 
3tatute, u3 held in People v ^'enfikii, suori*. But v.-'..en eaoh count 
of thf? information had b^^n so arended, t'lr: v-jrigiri^'.l in 'or nation 
ira9 iiapoued cf ;inl oaae etood on *:he infoxT.iation id urtanded, 
Tne aRiandment was not awcrn to -ini for r.hat rsaaon waa iaauff ioient, 
an w-,s) aleo the original information oso^uae the affiiavit i.iereto 
••('ad on infornsatiori. ii-nl belief. But ief&ndant 'withdrew his iemurrar 
to *ii0 infor r.Tsition as amended a-wX he thereby wcdved all questions 
aa to ita auf fioife.icy inoluling the question of Ite verification. 
Poople V Reftd, ^^.7 111, b06« In our opinion no question 'as ptQ~ 
served in the ocurt below fcr our review iS to tae aurfioisncy oi" 
hho articnded ixiforrr.atlo^» TUfc^t an ir.fcrrj'ation ^ay be <i.'"eni«i is 
clearly laid dcwn in Truitt v People 88 111. ^18; Lor.c^ v ^s-ople 
1^5 111. 435; Daxerbeklar v People 93 113, A^p. 5'r>^i ^ecple v 
Wanooaki, oOS 111. Aop. 47. 

Complaint is uiie of "he openinfr sto-tement by he rt.-tea Attor- 
ney to t ic jury. Ke rr.erely atu-tei ^o the jury what he expsoted 
to provo defendant had d.iid concerning hifi having '•heretofore 
joll intosicating liquor, which atatement 'he states a'-torney 
bala vfa» niaie in t'.ie triul of anci.her c«*ae. It ./as .competent to 
prove ^igainat t..e iefeniants a.ny ad-Klsaions or 3t-at;e;ient*» i:e may 
nave .'nada that he had add ir,toxio>*ting liCiUord, vhet.i-r ixx a 
oonvaraation. or on chs (fitutae utand. ^sople v Andevaon, ^39 
Ix*. ib'Ct ibi, iht; •t-tea attorney iia nv. atato tc "-...o jury 
on r.e trial of o&ae t.iit ioal^ement was rrado by is'eniant, 
nor in writt court tnat saso v:ae re^ iing, nor •'^ho •flao s iefendant 


zci Litxettt'* ?-/ «t j^e.; 
i>ood"«a&Jbxu.' eri 

'i'lStt X*nit t'ro ^j,"T .ST;-;' ly ''to' 

T-Ari i^rr Toil^. "Jo 

,''i06 .III V3ii .t^^-f 

iOti ,l3t»i.>nr'.r 

-> t^fcft .' 

J . J. Of £.^ ■ Ox 

in that caas, nor v;ua"t the reeu^t cf the tria,! wa», i-rii \e aald 
nothing t:.c;,t he vraa i-ot er.tltJta tc prove. Counsel for iefeniant 
foliowei th-i; up by c;ta.tir.g tht-t l-hi: ati^temert Ir^i been made oy 
-iei'fcudaut s«» & .vitreea in » jxosscution ..-t^lnat himealf lor ■» 'le sai 
oi' in-i,oxioii.tin£- liquor, ii-nci thAt be «vus convijte-i. lin t'.it oAae, -j-nd 
tliat iOxOK iant claiaod that thri-t conviotion vas a os.r to thia guit, 
ThcEi) tLing;:* were not sto-id oy :he slates attorney, aad If they 
vvdre uvjT'iiful to iefer.jL.nt hs oai.iiov 

The vuriict v.Uj* 'Ts V. e ^ury, find rYv iesferijirt, "ax Fenaky 
guilty in s-nner t.n'1 forir. c^s chax.7ed ir Ga;ih s^r:! 'ivery ccur't c-f 
'c..ii iriror;;£»1;ion. " Dsfcniunt ncr.tanaa that it is ineuifioiont 
boo *utt tIiCJ63 jcrl2 '.vare nc*: iadsd "Ibersto; "^nd tae amendmsnta 
t>*fer<3tc." T'u;; triul Via on t>.9 inf oriiiitior: j.b airandad i,nl not 
on ' :.„ jiigi.iJLl inf crrriatica. The veriict ;nu-t b« UDd^■^rlitoGd to 
rfefer io V.^e cvifi;:dsi inrcrsaticn, •hi ^h lua tbs only .Tiattor vfnioh 
vat; being trisd. 

Ey Ihe j ulgni^nt the dofandunt uua fin^d C50 and coata 
Xiiidsr ei.i*h souiit unl w-^^* oentanced to inprisonwent in '■"ir oounty 
^-.ii for thirl^^ ij-ys and:5r ths fir-ft count, and -raa orl-srei to 
^ -nd cciLii ' t6i cill -'..:i •in«>'» unl ooata "^fdcis raid, r''?-C«;r.di^nt 
ocntiiilu triit tliJraah&uid havs t-.-un v.di'id tc the ;5u'-iarr5«nt the 
.^ri6 "ur aiitii hs ii uiachi^rged !?y dua coura'3 cf law." Der? 'niant 
ccntjivda tu,*,t if he t.hould V.- unatla t'j p^y the^e finaa the 
IJuigmer.t authcrij©* hirr *o be laiprlaonel .'or lif j. Thia poaition 

.e,aiijcel by 3-30tior- 17 of Diviuion 14 of uhc Grinlriiil Code, 
.hioh provides that when it sh&ll b© 'CA±t Ht^tisfa-otorixy to .*. pojir 
the court, afS'^r all ler^s-l m9?->.n« h->-ve '-"eii exriciujtrtd, t a', any 
. :.r3on ocnfined In ij.ll for :-.ny firiO or joate for uny oriTinal 
c ffcnie hath no estc*te where!*! th to pay audi fine ind oce+a, it 
alMill be '^hj duty of the court '.o liaoharcje hiu. /ron further iit- 

Mt, -fhioh disohar-e shall operate ad a r-;loaae of the fine 

•xrA 008 ta . 

Tii« ^uagraent xs vUe_-oiort;a» 

i ctsi Ci 


.O^ ^,jO. 

Bttt9mlct&ins an J' iii 

rioinx leftj- 

"Six ttiu 


SECOND DISTRICT. i ^^* I. CHRISTOPHER C. DuFPY, Clerk of the Appellate 

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing' is a true copy of the opinion of the 

said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in m}' office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 

da\' of in the year of our Lord one 

thousand nine hundred and 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 


Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the six^ day of April, 

in the year of our Lord one thousand nin(/hundred and 

\ i 

twenty;^ within and for the Second Distr/ct of the State of 

Illinoi S.: 

Present--The. Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres/ding Jus t ice 

Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Ju^ice. 

Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Ju/tice 



219 I.A- S^^ 

BE IT REMEMBERED, f!!at afterwards, to-wit: on 
JU the opinion of the Court was filed in 

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following, to-wi t : 

Gen. No* 68 1'^. 

William Templdton, uppellfi* 

r»rissd«r Fruit & Produoe Co. 

i;ib«.x. r. J. 2 1 9 I •A. 8 3 3 

la tue iiorniap cT October ^'i, 1818, 7t;."jpx6ton, ws-ikln;: ■frcir 
ciid jxic<«fa.i«t t:, t,Lo jii:.ia» oi' Aii-cis S+rto-c in the ci'!:y cf Psoriu 
'cO t- .>.w -, otiw-a. our, -iii. ua iiujO truck iWiui uy the Orio.'sjsr 

.vll.WJwin uul rc.'iipl3ftoxi ■.i::*o t..rcv,n into tbe gu->;t«r an i o^rl-msly 
ijjuriiiJl. iij «vi3i i.;3 -jwasr w-' "..he trajii 'JO recover l^mixgea Jur 
3i*iii iniuriea, uni en a y-^V tri-^i li;*! ■<, ve^rilot amd a judcjment 
ior v'CO.w'O. rroii: \»hioll .lsf;j.u U.:it Appe'j,ia» It xj not- oiui.r;si 
-httt ""ine d:vrriag©a are .^xoQQyi\'u o.c i:"ih,t tr.e trisil ^iidq;© coj.mitted 
uny ':irr or a.ioopt in isnying defenduufM znotioa fcr a nev t'-'i^X . 
Dofeniaut ola-.-iS triat thd prjcf did no\ y.'arra,nt a rerdiat t::a.t 
dafondiint i«&a nof;iigont, and iid xiofc ij^uirej .-x v^T-i^ot t...-^\ 
plaintifr waa ^iliy of ooa&.iiba.wA'y fiBtjiigencw whi ou oarrta a, 

Ths proof by pla-intiff tended 'oo edt&blisli foilowi-ig faote. 
There waa in /orco in jity -n oraiiii;.noe /^sading aa fo^J.c'rd! 
"Tde driver of =v /abide ove taJcing a strtot oar <?hioii )tao stopped 
to t-.l:e on or iiaoliarga paesoiigara uiiali atop air* vehlole be."ore 
reaoding a spot opposite 'suoh cu-r io aa not ':o intsrfaro .•" th or 
injure passangere .vho o^ay bouid or alight from oaid our." 
Plaintiff oaae '^o ': ae oornar of Adajua ani 0-k Gtreeti to ^ake a 
car liOinK north up A.iams ntrset. Hs atood on th6 aidowaik on ^he 
east aide of Ada.fia Strset aouth of OaJc ^'tjrset, where oar'^ ^(^re 
ao3 stomed to atop for north bound paaaengera. It nas a li-''*;le 
afty- six i, M. end rainy -ni d<*rk. Livinga, a bort;hsr-in-lavr of 
plaintiff, wus on h-. .vay to hia p.aoe of work and had an ufcorella 

ti^lzooH molt X^aqqA 

• oO BLutot^ a Hull taaediiC 

8 8 9 ./ " '^ " '"' 

ita-c'jus . - .: -.Oi el Jill .:v.l6JtXIow 

I . . .ilAVrc efts' litVB bh .JLii'U/QLx 

■ •.^aijjJbt'T £ ijiu~> ffoiiTt?v .- ij;zi i-ix^ ^'xu^ « no tr.w ^eeJt'rxjtnJt II*is. 

/.s vi;fcia©xe 9t* ^avtsatiJ: tii* &mi* 

.U-ii'.;? r on x. zoz aoijum t-'J- -' gnivaeL cii. *qe.ox6 loitie yrx^ 

aoiX-^tyv *i 8iiuij£-i don Lii tfu. .JnogiXjiOXi fcjiv- unafciitaot 

.ato^i irexXcf«d'ea o? t9Lae9 lll&axaiq ^ti \ooiq qlT 

raroiu-o'i bjb unlLjif'. ^aa.satt'io an 'jJio LtnQ al ©oiol n^ bjw •■xedT 

iftqqci^K a^*f do.txl* Tt*»& *tf t*e ^ ;Mrii3i*-:" c-'ao sloixlev ^ lo tXijvixjL o£:T* 

•lolflev teir' Utt'giiseajaq egtCJiifooii. lo no o^f-;? oJ" 

f(oxiP ttitieoqqo toqe a ■^til:L0M9t 

,'i.*^ Lj:*^5 taoil tfiigxX« 'io v^it oxlw «79^a&8aj^q tiu^al 

n&^ttiiC jIaX) txi-s • .iToo W:-. Ou 6iiiio tlicfnifiXS 

— ■•1.13 amxi.A qiJ xid-ion ^nio^ a*o 
x/js ^sstrf^B arn^lA *o etie ^««9 

.^. i x:xT»3 .y. ,.4 xXo "eitl^ 

1 ri- 
■• T 

and iiaa w^lkai t.12.* far \»ith ploLl-iti'f un 1 atoci talking '.^ith 
pl^lnl,i-r till the oi^r auxa.. Hr) tiiian 'turne'l to ^50 on .•m"] '•".len 
t;iou;j:it of aomet^iing ',lae h-a wirfyioi s-o auy to rl^intlff an l -^ucned ani aav/ plt-intifl juat "jsiTorc} arid at the ti-^ie "^o 'vaa 'Jtruok, 
T)io our liad i-rrivod ::,nd j'6oi)p8d >vli;"ri itq fron-i ci,*< Oak Etrust '•~r\i 
tir.c reur -iC foe* fui'tr-er buok. Scvsral :oeu u.,.1 b3«n •?tt:.:;iir.!^ ir. 
th3 :itr-jct, r/aitlnr: for ■:l.e oux at. tJie T.roper placv to bcuri it. 
Several ct ;ar ir-^n h.-d atooa on ".lie yidd«falk waiting.; for *he ot-r« 
Tac 3-r atoppod, ^:be ii:eii iri i^c atryet 'jBg«>,ii to '.;tit on, i,l.'j men 
on *1".3 3xde»7uil: oturtci aoroae tha etr?ot to ^.l^o oar ^ni plc-incirf 
Wa6 t-.e l:f-ut of tli^Bici '^ill 5 plaintif T wiiS :;i~ja(»l:i>7 ."ro^R -"^--a :4iie- 
Ww^Ik t.o tl.f? sar^ f e truok caxe up t'-^-i atrost ats iii apddd ox 15 
milou per hour in ths i£,rk wi^hcuu any bauiligliii and .»!. +•.:■»o:^-. 
S0U:•Ii!l2 any \rarning. Tna ooriier of ^h*^ t^ruok atrujk pi .. 

and tarsw him into tlic gu'-tior. r.ifl proofs introduood by k'''enlaTit 
toiidel ■'•,0 aaov; V.Jit Mie >ipcel c' *"'t« tiuok .vcj only 3 o*". 9 uiil?© 
per liour, th?vt a light was burnin-j, that a horn .TaiB douiiibd, akid 
tiiat plaint i'f ran Into ths sida oi the triiolc, and f;hat M.ii i'ji-radS 
oar had not reaohsd that pla^^s .-h:.n thia icciicjnt liitppaudd. 
Plaiutif* had tnc rltnac3e-i 'c tV.e oocurr<;nce, hi;ii-'yl:' ana Livings. 
Drti'eniant had three -.vitriiSGes, the ^riv^'.r o/ tne car, ariof.jsr 
3niplcyas of defendant who redo ci: th: .'rcrt gcat, :-nd anovher 
smployac of iofen-.U'.nt ?.'ho stood up in tb« lAck :;.vrt v- M'l'i truck, 
Ti-.eas rrion ?itre not in +'? employ of defendant at h*! ti.riS of tho 
trial. Delenaant cont??nie that the jury dhouli have b«li«V3d k Ita 
■7ltnfc98cs or^cause ti.ey outnuEJb«r« pl^.in*:if f •& aituei^^ca uv.± ce- 
oause tr.ey ars net no'/ ir. t;>s erpioy of lorcnia.-t ^r.l therefor* 
arw AlBin-'«rBated, while piainti/f o .'iLr.e»6S» h intcreaMed. 

Tn& jury beiisvaa pl^^intlf:^' « sltncsssB. Ti.crc- oca 

in ^rocf which tended to juatily that bsllel". ir^'«r 

tiwLj*: was not diaiutortatcd, for h« sag 
t..i injury i; plaintiff's tsatiinony ie true. — ;:otive 

2l%:it e.1:* rtl i; «»xJtiB 

nyn &IJC 



firewan unl theraforr was aocuBtomei to rapii travel. 'MeitheT he 
.:or *:ie otiiSi: .i^an cr. t). Iront seat at^w plaintiff till after "le was 
hit.Tlie truclt .vaa cf light weight ani vvaa 3U. plied with proper 
AppllanacR lo 9top it quiokiy, j»nd '->.-•; iriver ;3it,yo h.> uiad t: en. 
lnjn»;Iiataly, but tli£ tru-jk rs.;. quiti ii. iong iid canoe osfore it 
.,,-.8 ito-'ped. Ths ^ury t^-^v? 3I13 ./ituiiae* unl r.3uri ''i tej^iify, 
ri;£ trlu.1 iuige approvai tl.a verdict. .Ve 33A nc .zrounia unon which 
vrs car. sc.y t>iit t'.ie i,~.::y ohoulJ -V'.ve believed iftreiiiant'e v-itn^aies 
incis^vi 'jf piaintj rf • s. cr ".hat anotl^i^r jury wouli '0.'. likrtl'/ to j,o 
qO. If Vn etreet c-.r "^-'.-.i^ T-L-jsi^'ing i:'-.ti»en{r«r» bjACT? p l. mtif f 
1-ft t".& rlJ;-:V;L\ll , then i£:c'r:i. nt' a Iriv.r vlcla^Al + :.» or:iinanoe 
,:. i vir.E .^'cilty of r.^gligsr^ot; . I: t;:s t-'-uck wxe i)yin>T^ :!ri7«n at 
15 .Tile a per hour in tha lark .dthoat jl li^'ot anl 'Without acurning 
a horn i'j it -:.... Oui cUaet its irlv:r '.tas f!;'.:iJ.ty of no;^- 
lif^enoe. T.vec. if t>.8 9tre;?t :;a.r l-^i not arrive!., it raa very rT»a^ 
at hand ci,r.l ♦•%€ prpecro* cf plain' iff iu ^ae straet «a;» net ne:;- 
esaarily ne^ili.'jer.oe, ."or t'n right tc Uiij the atros-l; .y^^ocyyz tc 
foot paaaengsre ^.^a Aell aa thc64 to tj. AV^llirigj in vsaioiaa. Tiis 
4u©&tioii iltigatei hare la purely on-3 o.! faot apon 'fuicn th« 
vsrdict of t.ij jury a-rprovai by ^he •'rial Juigs, i-j oonciucjive, 
in the 3t- te cf the a^iiance hare. 

r.iC juigxant ia thersfore «»,rf '.rrr.ed. 

NIITHATJP!, J,, took no part. 

.Visa *£08 zaoil ri? ao ajsm T9ri#b erf? lo: 
.o Jrigieiir ^rfgil lo u^vi i& en'T.tfid 

oi eaolsa eoniJ^faiii: -BnoX js stlup nfi? iou-it r,,,i ^u<i ,Yi9*£2teRtnl 

,Y:^ir6«* marft Jt". ©riff W£3 T^J-'t «^'T *ijdqc;o?« bj:,. 

rfoirl';' noqi; &ifa>0Tj. an see eW .Soitaev s-ft Lcvoaeq^ ^-^lul XaIt* ttar. 

5»»e(»n*lir a»:tn£i:n*^«t JbarslX. tli;0if£ ^r. \jss -'rtio 2. 

'tl .c. 
©or ^--Iljavffll tlrJ: 

Snifftwof; >+uori.ttT' frn^ ft^-' ■ otS-M^ itAt t.-frf cii mod isq ssI.t'Ti 2.i. 

-rstr. :f-on •-^.^w itecTtf^t sxi* til l!ti '/lijr-lq Tlo »o.iafl =»T:i a ■* f-rT^^ Jb/rjprf J.^; 

j:^ axfiOirc {t'eoTc^a ©rlj- fax/ o* Srfgii *rf1 20". .co.iSTilXjjsn Y-f^f'^**** 

5i T .t^ioi:! jiiiiXftVi .< j- o;f saod!* s^- XI©v a^i aTc* ^oc''. 

Slit r^.olii^i ctocu toi- o ^Xsijjq eX arrsn teJjBgliMX iioirfaoup 

.©viejL'Xonoo ti »osXxj(, . a/! • v'cf Jtevoiqojb \ciij(; srl^ lo tottizv 

.aisjrf ©ofreiXvs e-rft lo •:»• >tt »'rt? ni 

.J"ij3ir^ on -ivjo" ,.1. i^UAFi'iXld 


SECOND DISTRICT. • ) ^^' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFY, Clerk of the Appellate 

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 

said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my oflBce. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 

day of in the year of our Lord one 

thousand nine hundred and 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

(J^-H /h^ (11^7 

{ / ■ ^ 



Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixt^fday of April, 

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine/hundred and 

twenty, within and for the Second Distr/ct of the State of 

111 ino is: 

Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pre/id ing- Jus t i ce 

Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice 

Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, /us t ice. 

ARTiiUR E. SNOW, Cle/k 
CUR\ S. AYERS, Sh^r 




BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on 

the opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and fig-ares 
following-, to-wi t : 

Appeal from Peoria, 

!To, 6812. 

John Dunn, 

Standard Dletllllng and 
Diatrlbuting Company, 

Appellant. / #^ ^ .*^ -*. * ^ 

219I.A. 63 3 

Opinion by HEARD, J. 

Appellee brouf5ht ault against appellant for personal 
injuries received while in its employ and recovered a judg^ 
rcentfor §7,500,00, frorr^ which judgrient this appeal was 

One of the oounte of appellees declaration alleged 
that plaintiff, as an employee of Appellant was required 
to be in c\ose proximity to a revolving pulley and belting 
80 located as to be dangerous to appellee as suoh employee, 
the duty of appellant under the provieione of *An Act to 
provide for the health, safety and comfort of employees in 
factories, etc., "Approved June 29, 1915; in force 
July 1, 1915, • properly to enclose, fence or otherwise 
protect aaid pulley and belting; the failure of the appel- 
lant to comply with aald act. ''aid count further alleges 
that appellee's right hand, as a result of said alleged 
negligence of the appellant beoajrie oought between the said 
revolving pulley and belting, resulting in serious perma^ 
nent injuries to his rl^ht hand and arm and other parts of 
his body* 


.SI8S ,oVl 

^ .9»iI©qqA 

( .av 

888 .AJGIS 

( . (frrjallsqqA 

II o i n i q 

- -.. --.. ,^.- . .... ■' • ^()O.OOI!^f|l lot^nea 


td3©XI>a rrol;tj8a£Xc!i. wi.>-;X9qq\« to •*nuoo 9di \o •nO 

^aijtupsi eaw j£T«XXeqqA to »exO-C^«» «* •« ^lli^fniaXq Sedi 

Zi'tiS.9d beta ^BlLiri ^nlvXovtt 4 ocT Y^-toJ-txoiq eeoXo nl ecf ot 

^ftBYoXqaa rfoue an d»XX»qqj8 o;f 8^/0l©8^JR^ ed OS ajs fc»*eooi o« 

oJ *oA nA" lo antoleivotq ©rfj latnu JriAXXiqqjs lo yJjjf drf* 

at eesTfoXqine lo ;frrolaioo Jin* y**^*** ^rf.•^^••-. ■' «»<H[rf' 10I efclvoiq 

• oiol rr2 jSXPX ^SS ©ai/I. ^8V0lqqA* 4.0*8 ^UBlroitosl 

dalwierf^o 10 CL;fT«t ^eaoXona o* YXieqoi:q •,axex ^X )f-tJ^^ 

-Xeqq* srf* to 1 Bdi igni^tXacf hnjB ^eXXyq Jbijee itosJo-xq 

aogeiX* Tsff^ii/l jfnuoo tL»r> ,&oji Mjbb ritiw yXqmoo oJ *n«X 

£)»?0XXja Jbiijs ?:t *Xase*f ;8 ha ^brtjarf ^ff^ii a»e»XXeqq« isdi 

tiae ddJ net. ;r-yoo ©uucec/ *a*XXeqq« •!•(* "io •on^siXgen 

-«.Titeq fli/oJiTes /ti 3xit*Xui©-.T ^jniitXecf ^^* yoXXx/q snlvXovei 

lo 3itA<i ^©'f'to tn« iHTj8 tajs ^^J^Jrf ^jffii 8irf o:t a©iTtjL;(,nl ine^n 

t'^tod aid 


It la olaimes by appellant that the weight of the avl*- 
denoe ehowe that the aocld#nt in queotion -ArsLs rot due to 
negli^ience of the defendant, 

A few ds-ye prior to the ».coident, whioh ooourred Janti- 
ary a.9 , 1917, a new fan had been placed in the fan room of 
appellant's dittiilery. Adjoining the fan wp.a a paesaceway 
3^ feet wide, along the aouth elda of the fan room. About 
3 feet froir. the fan and on the other side of the paeaajjeway 
was a spiral stairway. The fan was designed for use in 
elevating feed and waa connected with a pulley ovsr whioh ran 
a 6- inch rubber belt driven by ateaus power from a counter- 
shaft to the Kain line ehaft which extended through the fan 
roorao The belt r«,n in ^.n easterly direction fror-i the fan 
pulley to a larger t^illay on a counter- aha^t. The larpsr 
pulley was to fjlve speed to the en-.aller pulley on the fan, 
whioh made about 1,200 revolutions per !rlnut«. The two 

pulleys were 13 or 14 Beet apart. This pulley and belting 

wa« not enclosed, fenced or protected aa required by la«. 
At the time of the aooldent appellee wa« engaged in throwing 
resin on the belt near the pulley, to keep the belt fron. 
slipping, when hie ri^ht am; w?s oaueht between the belt 
and pulley and he .ma aerlouftly injured. Had the belt and 
pulley bden protected aa required by law the accident could 
not have ooourrad and the jury were Trarranted in finding 
that apx-.ellar't^a failure to comply with the statute was negli* 
genoe which proxin.ately caused the accident. 

It la argued ^y appellant thit the damages awarisd 

were exoesalve. That appellee ''as aerloualy injured Is 
evlrienoed bv the fact that for over two years he was unaoie 
to do any work during which tlrr.e appellant gratuitously paid 


njii ho.' 


ie-^Ti,-ij, sn'T 

: A 

^oal 9Ai no ydXIxKi -xeXXAJne e 
Sua* *X»cr iff* i)j»H 

008 ^X Suo6m «b«fli dolifw 

»t«w t^^XXx/q 

3i«oXone ^oa «jiw 

^-:,9€ %rlf no ait»a 

:.ii% airf n«dw ^galqqlXa 

xAuoi%*s tJiV' »d Jbn« x*XXvq jbnjs 

s Jbo^otJOTq jt»6d ^»XXirq 

llXiOOO •▼Ad ^o/l 

;OTq doXitic •oa»s 

-1 ;,. z^'^^.L -^Zi'^rotif^f. o,w *. ,to ©-.tew 

i)i«q YX8^/o;IJtji*«i;o ^jtiiXXtqqji •aX»^ iioXiiw ^aXawfc jfiow t;iM ofc o^ 

him t3,605,O0, for his loet tirte* Both bones in hie arm 

were broken and tendons out and iaoerated. He was in the 
hoepital for alx or seven weeks with hie arm In a cast. 
The bonee did not xxnite and he vae a<yain taken to the 
hospital in May 1917, his forearm laid open and plates 
screwed to the bones on both aideso He was in the hospi- 
tal six or seven weeks at that time. In August he wae 
taken to the hospital the third time, his a r^ again laid 
open to the bone, the platee unaorewed ani taken out. 
Conditions of inflanjation, pus and supperstlon were suoh 
that the result was perme-nent inability to straighten the 
elbow, and to entirely olose his hand, whereby the normal use 
of the hand and arm was materially lessened, Weceesarily 
he suffered great pain over an extended period, ^rior 
to aooldent appellee was earning #35,00 per week, ne first 
oommenoed to work after the aooldent some tirr.e in May 1919, 
Appellant paid C'468 for hospital and phyalolan»e bllla, which 
added to the ^^3,605, heretofore mentioned and the ^7,500 
verdlot makes a total oorapeneation to appellee of $11,573. 
Taking into oonsideratlon all the faote and ciroumatances 
shown by tne evidenoe we wouldent be justified in saying 
that the damages awarded by the jury were exoeesive. 

""e now ooBiS to the rtost serious question raised upon 
this appeal which ia th^-t the court erre'l In not granting a 
new trial on aooount of improper argunent of appellee'* 
couneel to the jury. 

It is unquestionably a matter of fundamental importpnoa 

in the admlBl strati on of justice th?t every litigant is 

entitled to have the jury determine the facts in his case 

from the evidenoe In the case, uninfluenced by an other 


aiA 9tti ttl 96Tiorf iio8 »9mlS ^boI sir! lol ^00.50a.S^ mlrf 

•rfi ill <=. .fcad-jBttacxj. ^noJ&n©* trc* rxsiorrd 9T»ir 

, .ii aa-B airf Ait* &AP>t^-i leves lo xi« lol Xjsi'tqioif 

ttrl;f 3J neijBJ xii4?fl •- ... - ■ '^ e^-rrn *on fclb atnorf erft 

;; erf* ai a«w eH •aetiii cfJocf no aerrocT eK J bJl)» wvYOii 

:: arf ;tax/SJcrA ixl «0ml# 4jarf;t tR sieew nov^e to xla 'X<# 

J3l«X ai«s' Mfx^ Biff «oai^ bti(f^ 9Ai X^ifiqeorf arfif o^ ntiA;f 

*iuo n^iAt bajs £ewa*co«ffi/ aa^^Iq arft ^anorf »rf;t ot neqo 

rfouB aiaw noifattaqqjua bn* ax/q ^noiiMauiS.tnt \o staottltttoO 

•dt n9td^tai&B oi ^tllldMal ^frerrr.jaiaq aaw ilimet Bri:^ indf 

9Bii ijionoa erf:+ vf^sterfw ,l>ja«rf eirf aeoXo Yla-ilJn? oS brtj ^worfXa 

Xlttaasac .oanaaeal YXXjgiistjafli aiw atx* bn* bnBrf at(> to 

•iQt%- ,Jboi78q baJbrrs^xa rr« i«vo ni«q ifjsa^s b87al1:ira arf 

iBxlt 9^ .^eer -req 00, ac'^ snlrraa© ajsw oaXXaqqjs ^nablooja oJ 

.WCI Y*'-' inabXoo* arf*' la*!* iro^ oi beoaemmoo 

doidt: ,fi£itd fi'rt^JtoJeydq briM Imtlquod xo't 88*^ bi<q JnaXXaqqA 

003»V$ arfcr fcrr^ btnoiiatna a^oTto^aiaff ,909 ^C^ arf* o;f b9bbM 

.5T3^XX$ lo esXXaq'::/: oJ nnt&JBaz9qpinz iBtoS js aajfjsm toUbiav 

s-or^-' + P-u'r^- aoiSffOO oJfri jrti3f»T 

nabXi/ow aw aonaMva an.t yrf fTT.-ocfa 
.:-vJtBeaoxa aiew yrvt arf^ "ri fcabiawa e»a*nj?l5 arf* ^jsdi- 
^»ex/p fe arf* o^ aaioo won S' ' 

=>x^e *awoo arf* i'j'rf* ai rfOJtrfir Ijsaqqji alrf* 
' n^Mj^tn aeqoriqml lo *rtx;ooe.e rro tMttf ii»»n 

.vTt.r; .[ean>'/oo 

6 '- ^Ritnfc« arf* ftl 

aaao alrf ai aic^t *rf* 5nifflia*al5 )t h8i*i*ii© 

terf*o aji Y<f baonajuXtnlnxr «aa«o tri tciva arf* moil 

consideration , In Bishop v, Chicago Junction Ry. Co. 
S89 111. 63, It ^TRS said: "If opurte of law are to be souiv 
cea of justice, the rule that parties iltla;ant,/ regardless 
of Arho they may be, shall have secured to theit the opportuni— 
ty to have the issues of their caee tried by a jury free 
from the pre|udloal Influence of the Improper conduct of 
oounael, must be strictly enforced," The rule thus laid 
down was followed by ue in the recent caae of Bromley v, 
"oeoria Ry, Co., opinion filed March 9, 1930, where we 
reversed a close case solely on the remarks of Counsel. 

Tt is not every case of rclsoonauot or oounsei, however, 
which will require a reversal. Where the liability is 
clear and the verdict Is not excessive the matter is one 
which should be left largely to the sound discretion of the 
trial judge and every reasonable presumption will be Indulg- 
ed froc hia sanction that no nieconduot of counsel matterially 
prejudiced the opposite party, unless such aleconduot and Its 
prejudicial nature are clearly shown by tne record. 
N. C. S. By. Co. V. Cotton, 140 111. 486i C. C. Ry. v. 
Cr«eoh, 207 111. 400; neel v. Hellegenateln, 344 111, 335; 
Appel V. C. C. Ry. Co., 359 111. 561; Colline v. Sanitary 
Diet, avo 111. 109. 

In the present case the arguments to the jury were not 

taken by the court reporter and the connection in which the 

remarks complained of, were made la not shown. Standing 

alone without the context they are mostly rceaninerlese. 

While the rtnarks were undignified, Improper and •Wrongly 
to be condemned, objection vrae sustained in each case of wnion 
complaint .mB made. The trial judge who heard the remarks 

»J^4i.lfRf* t^« connection in whlgh^they fere made refused to 

grftttt g^ jjg^ trial on account thereof and we cannot say that 
the prejudicial nature of Counsel's irleconduot is so clearly 
shown by the record as to require a vaevereal. 
The judgment is affirmed^ 


-ajL/oe »' ei-ixroo 11" ; ijse a.;v' ^i ^£9 •XXI 68S 

tBaXbiwgdi \» Jn£; - - ..:'... js-f* eiin srf;^ ^eolJauj, "to ftiio 

-ifit/Jto 1 .0 erf* xBdt o& J)«iwo»8 »▼*<{ Xi*rfB ^9(S ^sca f[9tlt Qiiw J« 

lo ^oubrtoo tteqoaqml erf* lo •onai/X^nl Xjsolfcu^SKi eri* saoxl 

blMl •uAt 9lifi trfT •,l)sotolii9 x^&olniB drf *exm ,X»fcni/oo 

,v tf^Xmona lo •Bjso Jf!»oei erf* al ssj x^ fcewoXXo* e** owofc 

»w erctilw ,0861 ,e rfo-xjsK t>eXJtl nolnlqo ^.oO .^H jeliottr 

• XesrtuoO lo s^iarae^ srf* an vXsXoe oejso eeoXo « JbenTdvst 

,iav»wori ^Ieeax/oo lo SotttaooBtx to m/jo y'®^* 'I'Ofl eJl *t 

ei Y^-^-^-^cr<«^X arf* onerfW .xtiaievoi « 9'xii/^ei XXxw rfoiiiv 

ann t/sn erf* avltieeor.e ton eJ! *oiti6v 9rf^ tite i««Xo 

9r( :*e:co8^t tniroa arf* o* yX»3V«X *leX ecf J^Xijorfs rfoirfw 

-^Xitbni 8cf XXlw fxox*q(mnie"xq aXcf-Bflotjsei vtovb fcna esfcwt X«ll* 

YXXjii78**«ffi Xeenjjoo. lo *ojutaooBlfl on *frf* RolioaMB sirf moxi i^a 

«*i bttB ioutaooatm rfox/a aeaXniy ^Y*ajeq oDlaoqqo arf* £)dOitx/tfti() 

•Mooarc arf* ^d nworfa ^LimbLo htm aax;*«n X«ioXl>x/ta7q 

.V ,t^ .0 .0 468* .XXI 0*X ,no**oO .v .oO .^H .2 .0 .K 

iees .III **s ,ni8*e«©'?aXlaR .v Xean ;00* .XXI TOS ,rfoaaiO 

XTiMiltuse .V sniXIor^ ;ia?. ,iXI eas ,,00 .^F ^ leqqA 

.eox ,xxi OYS 4*aia 

*on airaw ^xu\, arf* o* aJasiflXTjie erf* aa^o *«eeaiq erf* nl 

iiii rfoJtrfw nl nox*oenfloo 8:fJ tcxa rc8*70qai *iuoo erU yo' aai«* 

8nll)n**fc , 3i» ^lo £>eril,aXqi«oo sjtijBmai 

.acelTinxnj»«»»a YXa&o»n *^* varf* *xa*noo ad* *worf*Xw aaoXji 

■J Blew siiaaiuaa erf;t aXlrfW 
aoi*08!;cfo^i)aflrr:ei3fioo ecf o* 
«.-;:! i'liiei an* Xiajtsrf erf?.' 6^iij|.;; edT ,Bb<da ajs; *nXjBXqmoo 

, i^e^aveftv « «: : mrorfa 


SECOND DISTRICT. I ^' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DcFFV. Clerk of the Appellate 

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoincr is a true copy of the opinion of the 

said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my oflBce. 

Ix Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 

day of in the year of our Lord one 

thousand nine hundred and 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

- a tp^^uJi (^^ I d/ o^ 


Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the afixth day of April, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand jfine hundred and 
twenty, within and for the Second District of the State of 
111 inoi 8 : g 

Present — The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, p/es iding Jus t i ce 
■Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice. 
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD , Jus t i ce . 
ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clei^|. 
CURT ^^. AYERS, SheMff. 

BE IT REMEMBERED, th^t iif t erwards , to-wit: on 
'Hi 1 - inon the opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and fig-ares 

following-, to-wi t : 

Gen« No. 6Soi». 

Parker {;::ug:*art, ft £.1 

Vd Arpeal fror, T/ii-rrfsn. 

Willian Payne, apf <fiifvr.t. 

219I.A. 634 

Appclieoft were. er.,;t-ge.i in t.h« <;' ouiJi/iet-.E-- *-- i.,i:tie 
York, "^Yc.rren Coxirity, r'ap-^.ftsfoor 11, 191?, tliey ra.ttre.i ir. .-,c ■- 
non"tr;>c;t -Tith cpp^Jii.nt aa "ollcv70! 

"ContriLCt !To. ... Little York Sti^tioix 191... 

■"his ip to onrtify, %\:a.% I hu-vr. thia aay oontraGtaa an! sold 

T.l^tle Yc:k Cra^r- vc, L'ttin Ycrk, ni., 
Tr.r. Thoiu-arid rr.fhcl*^ of Y«. Hot? ?. C, :i.1; il'> oents per 'OMihe:.; to 
be need, pounl :\r'i \ry 'Ar.rt to Craifj No. 4 Y cr cot* sir to h^ dcliT- 
ereJ Into th-Jir C']evfe,tcr i^t L'tt'e Yc-rJ: or "iiiunor on cr t- lorR t)ie 
31f3t. l^.y of D-^o. 1917. 

12 ianiac;;?.i or inferior ,2:ruln ie delivers-', or trii'' ;or;Vr-,.ot 
The n.i^rket iiff er-'^nce at ■'.«1iich cjiioh ffTi-in i-i soiling uriiier -.Ye oon- 
tract'wi ah-^ll be deluot-sd trora t\c contr^-ct orioa. 

I .JfcTtify that "thJ 7rc».in ia in ir.y pcaneawlon ■.:^n-l Troe of 
QienG ari IriCiiwbranoef: , inciuiinr tns lr::.n-llor'i' a Hers. 

Vi'ir Payno . " 
It wub uH-reea by txie r^rtise tbat""!, CS me*i:it "-^h-ellci sorn" 3.rid 
"IIo. 4 Y", "Nc. 4 Yeilcw." 

Arpfcjls.nt did not or. Repte3^b^■r n^ i ^] ? or at any - ^ . .- 
^ftar before Deo, 51, IS^l?, have in hi .^ possession, or make any 
attempt to ieliver to appelleeB any No. 4 yellow shelled corn, 
tout Tc iiu h'->ve over 1C,0C'C bvitheis cf j. pocrer quality kncwn a.a 
1^0 or eaciple corn. No corn of any ki ■- i -v- - I'^liverei on tha 
ocntr xct . 

. x\ ,as£> 

X 5? 

-■^ : . i ' •' .: J '1 i '■' r . oil ii. 

a<i; .. . TOY «'' 


.s.cTsiX e'i:-. iriL'XnrrJt , ssorraicffty/o.Ti fc/TJS crtsiX 

" . . , • . >;;« 

.rtT^o f?fr?'rf(s ^ .o^ Y-f^ "»* ' iSiViloi. oJ i-qmo^tje 

TTSVO 9Vcrl LtL s1 :tycf 

Appalleea brought auit against appellant for breach of the 
contract and Xiinovuviid a jiiuguiant for ,"349c.02, from \^blch 
Judgment thia u; pe &1 ic taken. 

A.v)F«ilii»nt cent .on li-; that the verdict ind judgr.or.t are contrs^ry 
CO thd tiviiflnov. Couu.^ol for bo'ih jiies un-X the trial court oonitrued 
tae ooutract iu t*:c d£..'ad jJi».:.n9X i~iil upon ire i-^-S'ied vrhioh mwi .-jub- 
miT.ted to tJiic jury due evlisnoo '7u-3 J.iarply jon.?l?. cting. Detor- 
miniiigyifcrifc-^ -'/("oiti-it o2 ■*. ..c evidj^co v^ua tl\c aj-eclaj. prorli;oe o:' nhe 
^ury' -...a-x 'v^e ^,cull not Lo jastii.i8d in Uaturhi/.'j their .finli.ig, 

Ac^fili.rit 50n.iylaiu6 of i'i.a :uC;iif i 'jati on c:' ti,<) of hi-.^ iu- 
u;"ruc;tl-ao uy inicrtlr-jj Lh--r;;ir, a i:.i'4Uirf;;::!.'nt ['o^t. t-.he corn 
cLcuj. i b;-. uicx ciui.TO.tia.tlt ocrA. Ihtre wj.i- ao *rror in the moli fio-ition 
aa both oi.iea oonoole t/.at tr^e'ict oy^l iai for t^ie leliv»:ry 
of ciorohantablt; sorn. 

Both Lii'jtsy tf*ndcrc4 tc tLr QOiJrt aftvsrs.l lr«!tru:t3 or.s layinrr 
lovm c.iO rulu ^.s to tha burden of ,:.coof in Acccrlance vlth tbat 
statedin Irccjuoia Furnaofc Co, v Hariwari" Co. iCl 111. or. c;.gc y. 
ani the oourt inotruoted the .'Juiy ;jiCCOi:<iirigly. Cor.plaint i« .Ti-,-i« 
of the afpelle^'a inatruotior.0 ^.nd the niodif ir'sjtioii :;f i.arr.a of 
ap^iellants inatruoticne upon this 3Ub^£ct. /icpoHiat t^niersi at 
Isaet five inatructic ts in which the rule vvae stated io livsn 
by the oourt and whether the rule ^aa rigat cr wrong, ic applied 
to t.-s xajte ci thif. oaee, -.i , ell^-nt is ester vcd ,frcn: nc^ 
conplaining with reference ther tc. ?prlnger v City of Chicane 
Ijb 111. 552; Mclnturff v Insurance Co. i4f 111. 2^ ; C. C. F.y. Co. 
V Hagenback, i>S8 111. nQC . 

Appellc-.i.t tendered aru-. court refueod hia ir.utruotion V.o* 

S» <fhich it' If-ngthy, im'olved ^ni n.cot cf the prcvleionr, of vhloh 

are ccntaiued ir. other InetructlcnB. Apj.r.:.ant ■.-onter.ic th^t ite 

rafuaal wco error hscuuse it arncur.ocd t .e rule that the iury 
ahoull not oonallcr the question c*" daroage* until they had first 

.' rfojsaid 1 

. wU 

.XXI XOfe .oO 

^'■OijfiO'xl alii9ti,*ii 




rort ajotl, x:a<:7qoJ'as 

--« .ilL i*;» .00 ao^ivcii/ertl 

.^■' :i3i:5'o;ji*enjt air' aa uuc 


.XXI aa 

,3lo£(3ni;ajH V 

... . .-A 


Q3tt.l6.i 'irif quGotion of liabilj-fcy. T7hile in pRrsonul ir.;iury :ini 
r.C'.r.y oll'cr oa-eer. t^e nature 1 ordtr i'or ^ i'iry to pur.vue in clonal i- 
ering ':he ca.Be v.'cul:l be to fo-.loiv the. rule announooA in '■At in- 
atruotion t.v.'i un metructJion; tlu^rc tc Ic bo .vouli be 
proper, in t, Oc.eo liV:(» the present nhere the c^uestion cf i,%riif;ci 
a.ncl lic-.biliby ur« 3o cloaely reisited there is nc 3ubs*-:xrt'' al 
reaticn ;'cr giviUj-^ t -o in&truobion i-rd its refusal (r^e net nrror. 
Strathta^n / U, t:. 9x.Py. Co. -13 111. ~>b2) C. C. Ry. v Hagonbaok 
-i^e 111. 390. 

CoiJi^lc^-int :iU .-;:.. u. o. th'. r iaa--- oi. o". r^ar of .-. ' 

lni3tru3tior,B. The rftfused InatruotJ ons wers iioctly r-;. .■ ■ -jn :: 
jiven inetruotiono. The ^i:ry v/ae fully ani fairly inaliruct.aa in 
ucaoriunot: :.:.■! con':it;raotion placsl upon the oontr:*cl! by tha 

c<purt iini -<.':ur. -djL for botr. 3lls3 un.i /rnather tiat oonatruo'.'' 
rt2.9 right or ATong- t"-? court ii i not srr in rsfucint,' '' " ■ > r i:- 

I-^, iti 3,36ir;n«.i -^^ rrr-r oy ..fipej lant tVia,t the cour* firry: . in 
net -giving ^ n^w tria-l en t /.e ground of t.\e aimioaion of ir/^atf-^ial 
prejudicial evi ience . '3?e ars of opinion that th=! nourt 2i i ';: : «rr 
in thit rt?Bpect. 

Lastly it is cont'-nJiea I*.ax o.-rj Amount of xx^-":^)^,: .' 'km- 
the ,1ury ia not eurpportfji by the eviienoc. Counsel on bc'h i.i.'a 
agree on -chcs .-i.isafjur'? of .iatr,e,ge» idkid ic/.n by the ocu"!;. The Sw-ncont 
found by ths jury is --veil '-vithin th-3 rs-nge of t^e ovilcrce. 

Finiinj- no Trversibl« error in the oviirnoe tht juA^;' ^-t* 
wili b-3 affirmad. 


; j: 1 8 aof 




SECOND DISTRICT. ( ^''' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFPY, Clerk of the Appellate 

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foreg-oino- is a true copy of the opinion of the 

said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 

day of in the j^ear of our Lord one 

thousand nine hundred and 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

7 ^0 


Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the ^xth day of April, 

in the year of our Lord one thousand jRine hundred and 
twenty, within and for the Second C^strict of the State of 
1 11 i n^o i s : 

Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL , />res iding Just i ce 

\ Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS/ Justice 


;\u&i Just 


ily, Justii 

i^THUR E. SNOW, (derk. ^ 

.^ri«, 219 I.A^- S^^ 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on 
Jul . the opinion of the Court was filed in 

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following, to-wi t : 

No. t5701. 

Axal Lavahn, Av1trilni«tr&tor of the ) 

E»tKte of Saxton Ludwig Lava-hn, v 


Appallaa; I 

va, ) Appa&l Boona. 

Rookford and Tntorurban T?allway > _ . ^ .-». y| 

)219I.^. 63 4 



Appallant, ) 

Opir lor by NIEHAUS, J. 

In thla caae an opinion cffirfliinr: the judg;r..ent of the 
loT«i5r court waa filad a.t the Ir.fcit tertij but a re- hearing 
w^a granted to con«lder p.ore .fully the quest Lona of error 
arising on the givlnp; of certain inatruotione for the 

The appaliao Axel Lavahn, ?^a adrainiatritor of the 
eatuta of Sexton Imdwlc Lavahn, iaceaaed, ooromenoe'l thla 
suit a:;alnat tha appallant, Hookford and Intarurban Railway 
conpany, to recovftr damages for oauain:: tha death of B5lid 
vi.aceaaed. The proof ahowa, that tha ieoaased on ??unday 

tha 29th day of July, 1917, in company with two othar peraona, 
Tillie Lindroth and Anna Lindroth, took paaaaga on appallant »• 
railroad at Rockford, and rode cut to e atatlon in Boona 
county; where they apent tha day in tha wooda. In tha 
evaning tha daoeaaad and hi a ooBipaniona returned to take 
a car back to Rookford, at a croaaing known as tha Swaatrcan 
oroeaing, Tha Sweatman croaalng, la a plank oroaaing; 

and a regular atation or stopping plaoa to tat'o on, and dia- 
charga paa«anger8 on appellant* a Una, Tha declaration 


♦ XOVb .o'A 
«fu*«vftj aivrbiiJ nQcrxdS to aJ^d^eS 

. R«.l "^rc 


^89 ./.I ex 2 



Tt©-t;*re To srr'> ■ sStmb^cj 

nrf.-t lo't ;;ii.-Ji^o,J^.t^.i.aI iiijJ-x&u io ^inivx^j ari- no gn-t&iiJS 

• taXXa<iqA 

Y«wXi.*H ndCfTinejfrrl f. !oo?T »tfi;ji,XXoq<i-i eri^t ifanl^s* ^^"* 

hii;« "^o A'Jc?r sricf :j.^i^i;£,o lo'^i aegAaMt a«vooaT :);t jYOJtqnoo 

^jBLnxff^ rro i^j&B^eof 'sri* ,»wo/le lootq sdT ,i>eaji8oefc 

»an09r:«fi ler^.so ow* xljj..-. ^^nxqnoo ni ,VXeX ^yXji/l. 'to ya^ rf*^^ •rf* 

*»jrfljiXXa(iq/:. n 'toifcnJtJ j»nnA briJB rf;ro'XfcnlJ oXXXlT 

*^"f^ ' tMo't;i30^ fji bAOiltar 

■r. -Tt..-:- " ^' -..orr^i Sniaii; ToJifoon o* iojBCf i*o « 

s.3'^ • ^gnXtiao'io i^^.r.i'^ewR ariT .grtJaaOTO 

•**"-^-'" ?* i^''^' ■■."■ sc^iq s*'"^^'': 'rrc^JAla i^AXi/jea a JbnjB 

iin., j^.i.Xoaf »rfT .aniX e**n*iii»q<iii no aiasnans^q ajijs/lo 

SLvere, and the avllenoe t«nd.e to show, that appellant *e oaru 
•top regularly at this croeelng to take on and leave off 
pasaengere; aiao, that care ueue-lly eisnal by whistling when 
two to five hundred feet distance froK the creasing to indi- 
cate that they are going to atop for thnt jurpoae. The 
deceatel and the two women who were with his*, reached the 
oroeaing on the evening in queetion about ei^'ht thirty, and 
were awaiting the arrival of the Rockford car, at the croe* 
• Ing ; and the aotoraij.n notload the people, who were 
atandlng at the oroaeing ae the oar approached. There ia 
a oonfliot of evidence upon the queetion aa to whether the 
usual aignal was given, to indicate that the oar would atop 
to take on paaeongera. The oar which the appellant oli-icie 
was a through car, to be followed by a local oar did not 
atop, but ran past the croaein* at a high rate of apeed; 
and in paaainj etruok and killed the deoeaeed. There was 
a trial by jury and a verdict and judgment for the sum of 
$5500.00 from whioh this appeal ia proaeouted. 

The s.ppellee*a cauee of action le baeed upon the 
claim, th*t the leceaeed etood at the oroeaing, awaiting the 
approach of the appellant » a car, and that unlet the oondit- 
iona preaanted by the evidence he bore the relation of 
paeaenjer to appellant, and that appellant waa bound there- 
fore aa % matter of ieafal duty to oxerolae the higheet degree 
of care vigilance and foreaight concerning the safety of the 
deceaeed ooneietent with the character and aode of conveyance 
ueed in the preotioal operation of ite road. The appellant 
inaieta, that the deoeaeed waa not in the relation of a 
paeaen^er on appellant » a line beoauae he* had never been 
accepted ae auch. Whether or not the deoeaeed at the time 

he waa killed oooupled the relation of paasenger forma the 


. »*n«XX©Jjq:* t»dS ^wod* oi »ba»J ©oateMve erf ,8ieTj» 

"i^o •▼Aol tn* (to 9iMt ot ^at%90'to bM:^ *fl. ri^i^iws*^ <*»*• 

fldriv 3niJ:*eirf* ^o ijuxgxa ^XX^i/aw ttJio iadi ia-rs^rtsna^q 

©dT •»&oqxi/f .tjBrfJ lol qo^« o^ s^ioj •"!* ^erf* ;tjerf* »Jjio 

e;f? ti'-fc.'?f*-. ^vijirf rf^f-jtw •T«w oriw xiMiow eni edi tarn fc»»j»ftceJb 

'jodM aolf%9s/p ai ^ninev^ erf? no ;gni$s&70 

e:cow oiftr ^«Xqotq 9^9 btotton assarotosa •sii ha* ; :gfil% 

el •Tsrf? •rorfoAO'xqqji Tito titii e« ^rrlaaozo aif^ ^« gaiJbxtJita 

o.* noii'aei; 3on»jfcxve lo talLtaoo « 

CiO*e .f* *erf,t a-tJioi- .iitvig Xaflgia isuau 

s:!ilalo in.. ao adt «e-x63fle(it«q no ai4i;f o:f 

9i?oXXot atf 0* «tjso risx«jTri* « ajaw 

i£)96;^s ^c r;l:a«0'!co art* yajaq nj»T ;^j:/Cr\qola 

'9Ji9omh «r(t baXXiJf ^n« ;foim^a ;|ixitfi4iq nJt tns 

ioidfi ajctl CX),00a8f 
-•ri;; .'TO':i/ 'jtjsjiiicf »1 nolcfa* lo aau^o e*aaXXBqqjt arfT 

w* ^snlaaotfo atfj t^ beoik £•a«ao•^ ariv' ,:?iJ:*Xo 

-^-ii- i9bau tMcit btiM ^tio •♦*«*XXaqc'.«; sri^ tc rio^oiqqji 

lo abiJjiia'i ad* •'•rotf eri aortetiTa ad -taRaaaq enoX 

-«iadd ijnuocf ajiw *njiXXaqq« trndt ba* ^^fiijXXaqqa ot «^neta*q 

aa^S^^ ^aedgld ad* eelorrexa o* jttOi X#t sttMsti c sm atol 

ftdi \o 7*al«e ari* jhXnrxaoaoo iWplaano" ...uiX^iv »t«o lo 

»oa«Y«vnoo to ahoa Jbaii le^o* tv in**aianoo i>aaJlaoa^ 

J^AXXaqq* adT ^bMOi • rtstfrq 9{l) ni b9»u 

futit ^^t9lB^t 

' " rrjtfXXoqqji /to la^naaaaq 

«»iaXct- s?il;? J-jg Li>«4aoat «doxm •■« £ia*qaooj| 

ad* anTOt ^aiiaaaKJliT \C rf-t hAl-rrrmna h« rri^ SAW ad 

Bi&ln l«s&l cont«ntlon, und this question is elaborattly 
argued on 'both sideso "^e ^re of opinion th&t if the laoeas* 

• d jras at a et^tion or stopping pl»iOd on ai.pslls.nt* e line, 

at tha proper tirie'ana In the proper i;l«,ce, und in ». proper 

condition to take paaeags on appellant *tj oar, ano' ^ue ready, 

wllllnif and preparaa to pay the regulf.r fj-re; and wt^.tting 

there to board a oar, that the rtjlation '^i' passenger ^•'aB 

thereby created although the deoaAeed nn.d not yei. haen 

fornir^lly accepted ss such by Uhe appellant. A corumon onxri— 

ar i^ bound to acuspt. aa ptt,av3enger ^ojraona offer i;i^ th.-^mealTSS 

at the proper ti^ie and pltce anu in the j-roper Biarner and 

oonaition, and who are prepared , ready «ni willin.j to pay 

the legal fare; an accsptan^^e of such perBonw by the 

carriflr ae ph.aatsi'^nTa an:y be imilirf i un«it*r thft>« olrouj>ietai>» 

where It appears, that under these cirourastanoss, 
csa, the Ci»,rri«jr could not littve aade any reasonable object- 
ion to the aooeptanoo ol buou v«r»oni) an pasaer-gerii, the 
aoceptanoe will be preijui-n!. Thia principle is clearly 

upheld in Tod* v. L. & N. Railmy Co. 197 111. App. 141, 
affirmed in 274 111. 301; ind in C. & E. I. Ry. Co. v. 
Jennings 100 111. 486; Klinck v, C. C. H^y 177 111. App. 
lo5; I. C. R. R. Co. v. G'Keofe 168 111. 115. Tt 1h 

contended by the appellant th t error .vaci oorjnlttsd bs- 
CRUBS appellse in hia examination of the jurors tjti-.ted to 
tha jurors hia version of the lar concerning the relation 
of 'paeseng-r and carrier, and asked the jurors, if they had *M 
any quarrel with t]jo rule, to ..jiioh o mnaei for appellant 
ffiado objection, and the objection .*a» overruled by '.he 
court. The objection -<a3 en the ground that coun>*«l for 

appellse did not correctly stats t.he rule of law. 
Without passing on the propriety of that kind interroju-tories, 


"V^jmob .- ■'■6 dtO'i T.T« 

i'^«a«i»o«x ttU ^l^jk/cii^X-i bittn^xe '^^cTsisdi' 

B8V o^ c;q»oo« otf tiflxio 

X*<i o:t 5;nj;XXi.v Lin v; ctw jxui ,nc i 

•ri;t ^4'i»2n'^ 


XX'XiiftXo ai. •!: 


,XAX .q. ' 

,i.ii sax eic38.- ' 

— ;:; De;/JiitLnyo Qjiw 10': ■> 

.UU .XXI t^YS ai bss.zillA 
'id* .1X1 QGX tr 

ciifl'-iCi^ ditJ Y^ XstiiS-'.-;. u 


;- J,c 

- fl J 

s,r:ic.^jic jjywn.J-;v 

and a«6umlng that app«lle«*3 oouneel did not correctly atat« 
the rule, and thbt the court Hiight lxa.v*s properly ^uetaineu 

appellant'* objection, it id net apparent how appellant 
Aae injured by the queation iheth«?r the juror had any 
quarrel or prejudice against uach a rul(% of law; and thle 
oannot therefore not be considered e.a reversible error. 
Appellant alec coxLplaine, thi-t appellee's coun^til in hi:} 
opening ets.tdnent referrftci tc the fKCt, that one of the 
girls who were with the deoeased, at the tirte hi": was killed^ 
wati hi£ fiance; and Ineisted, thai t.hitj etatenent //e;a 
prejudicial. But, it appeara, that appellant 'o counael 

in hid cross exaruination cl ijfcna Lindroth fflioited fror: her 
i.ha eaKiS fact, and brought it to tae attention of the jury; 
obviously therefore, the appellant is not in. .oonition tc 
complain, because this* fact was brouf^hL to the attention of 
the jury. It ie inaisted also, that the court at the 

close of the plaintiff '4 evidence should have directea a 
verdiot for* the appellant, because the evidence oiaurly 
showed, that the deoeassd wao guilty of oontributory negli- 
gence; that it ahowe that the deceased voluntarily piacftd 
hlrjseif in a position of danger. Whether ha //as or ^as 

not guilty of contributory negligence in the position in 
virbioh ne was, *hen struck, jyas a question of fuot for the 
jury tc detsrains. Ths rule is, well eettlsl that the 

question of oontributory negligence io noe of fact, and for 
the jury to determine froR. the svidenos; Bale v. Chioago 
.junction R'y Co. 259 111. 476; Rally v. Chicago City R'y Co. 
sea 111. 640; Peterson v. Chicago Traction Co. 33^ 111. ^27; 
„orth Chicago Street R'y Co. v. Polkey 303 111. 233. '.^e 


Si+.^.j-e vX*,tc»rrr.- 

it if 

90d 4a- 

r»»nifoo «*»»i. 

3l(* a»x(*«: 

1Ia*C0Y»-S HA bWX9t 

ctmuBua tttM 
, tilui ail J" 

,»i(j to ieit^wp 

:t[t ^#«JT •rf* o;r lisittlAu *ad*i*;r«i8 ^irlnoqo 

^l^sn Yto^^c.'.: a««eoai> wdt i~ 

:<,e^csio \'xixm4nuj^vv ban a* ij»di swojia tl .tjifld- iconoj^ 

-)i*rfit ^X8irt»Xv<iw 
■ *aienJ: ."•■..! 

nj. ft©i,rflaoq eri* rr/ 9oa»' 

i\ji HiHt'x 

ni IXaactXd 

• ;t rro o 'x 

vtui aflJ 
, i»d .XXI r8£» 

think therefore, thtt the court proi>erly refused to dlreot 

a verdict. In thiw connect ioii attention obould alao be 

called to the fact, thai ap«olaI .finrtlnga were aubmltted 
to the jury ore of whioJi had rt)f*rtjnc»i to the faot of 
contributory ne.jllgeno^. The sj.eolal finding on this 

Bubjaot wao an followe: Do yov ^ind froii a pre/jonderano* 

of the evidence, that the dooeased Ludwig Lavahn juat 
before, and at tha tire he wan -atruok hy or oar.i) .l.n cwntact 
with the car in •lueetion, was in the axerciae of ordlnait 
cars for hia own aaf«ty ? To vrhich the jury ra turned an 

affirmative anawer, No objection wan laade ir. the trial a 
court, to thia 9p©oi;~.l finding;, on the ground that it v»aa 
uneupportad by the eviienoe; ncr, .va»» «uoh a olains made or 
urged in the motion for a nsw trial. The point ii>ade by 
appellant, li. the aiotion fur new trinl, that the verdict was 
againtt the weight of the -"svldeno© a-rplied only to the 
general verdiot; and not to the special findinge, inaeBniOh 
as the api>eilant did not claiw error ir the court below, a» 
to the •peoiai findin,-;«, it la preoludad in thi^^ court, 
fron: quest ione the conciu«ion« reached by the jiiry^ in these 
findinge, Av^ry v. iSoore 133 111. 74; City cf Aurora 

V. Rockabrand 14ft 111. 399; Tionneylvania Coal Co. r. 
Kelly 15fci 111. 9; Erpire Machinery Cc. v, ^^rady 164 111. 
68; Vol^ht V. Ant^lc Airerlcan Provieion Co. 302 111. 463, 
Thia court aleo ao held in the case of Kri^tel v. Midhifan 
central R8y Co.. 613 in. App. SIS. In thi.i ^.tr.te of the 

record the matter of contributory nej;liflfenoe cf the deceaeed 
80 far ae thia appeal lu concerned, is ccnoluHi\rely settled 
against the contention of appellant, Appsllant contends, 

that the appellee, who is seeking to recover upon the ground 


flv5 f}8iT 

lit Bci.9 i& ha* 
*!' ';J»1,ae nvo aid ao'x «ii»o 

■ i J 



itbrtit i4i09qtt til:' 


that the daoeaaad -^a^ -j, pa.iaenfC'^.T of appellant ' l^ road, hae 

no allocation ir: hio -ieclura-t ion, that the deceased wao a 
paeaenger at th» tlfce he was kill3d; and that tha declar- 
ation thersfora foea not atate a ouaee of aotion. We ure 
of opinion, uhr.t the dealurat'.on allegea auffioient faota 
to aho«r, that the relation of oarriar and paaaenser exlat- 
ed at the time the >i«o«wia8d vraa killed, 

Oa reoonai deration ol the quoatione raised oonoarn- 
Ing tha inetructions »iven for the appellee, .«?s fln.i that 
the first inetruotion ocm. lalned of told the jury, that if 
the.y delleTe .froxi. the evidence, thr-t the relatior. of paaa- 
enger and oarri-sr *xlet©d batwaan the deoeaaed Levahn, and 
the appellant; arri thst the place of the accident waa a 
reoognieed ataticn, «h«ra the appellant *aa in the habit of 
receiving; and diecharginj paaaengara; that then it \ms the 
duty of the ap>^ellant, to uae the hif^haat i«?reB of cere 
and skill reeaonahly practical, ivnd provide aaid Levahn 
with a aafa place to take paaoage upon the car in question. 
There le no allegation in the dfeclaratlon, that the 
aipexlant wart ^ilty of nef^llirrence by not furniehinc 
Levahn a safe place to take passage upon the oar; and the 
aipellao therefore would have no ri^ht to recover en that 
ground; but the .Jury by thla Inatruction was led to con- 
clude, that thla waa a prop6r ground for recovery, 
fhe fifth inatruction the jury, thatlt vas t? e duty 
of the ai^peilant, to do ail that human Ga.rc , vigilance and 
foreaicrht oo\xld rsisonabiy do conaistent with the oharaotdr 
and mode of conveyance adopted, and the practical 
operation lI ita bualneea to prevent accident and injury to 


*.- --1 

. _ _. . sej.&ct .. ■ ■ .:. . te 

'it. Mr b'i r. V In'jsn or- sfti X I ijila i)a£ 

■Jiindll.o on ai •lerfT 
'^'^.f ^ ... .tajBXXs<iqj8 

ot&iftif;? *6lXeqqj9 

;'n£j.i»c , to 

:^- •■ roo Jrfjlatio^ 

. ^:^qoJb^ ftoniiY^v^aoo lo •torn Jbn« 

th« laoaasod L«vahn, if the relation of carrier and paee- 
enger oxiatddi and, that if Vne appellant had failed or 
negieotad to perfora any duty enjoined upon it xinder the 
above rule; or if it had aone eoue aot in violation of the 
aboTe rule, which reeulted in the injury and death of aaid 
Lerahn, then the appellant waa fuilty in thi« c&ee. It 
ii« elementary, that the ri5:ht to recover rmiet be baaea on 
the particular negligence charged in the declaration; 
Crane Co. ▼, Hogan a38 111. 338; ciiioago & Alton E. Co, v. 
Raburn 153 111. a90« And an instruct ion which doue not 
limit a recovery to the particular negligence, which the 
deoxaration alleges, and concerning which iaaue hab been 
joined, la erroneoue; Ratner v. Chicago City Ry, Co. «Jv>3 
111. 169. The inetruction ia alao obnoxioua, becauaa it 
aeeuoice a fact concerning the deceaaea, about which there 
is a conflict in the evidence, namely Ihut the ieceaaed 
Levahn t% a atood at a, particular ^.laoe at the oreaaing. 
Instruct ione Noa. ti ana 10, also, are dzroneoua for i.he xeaa** 
one etated, naj3.ely , tJtiat they ao not confine the right of 
recovery to the negligence oh&rgeu in the aeularation* 

«^e are of opinion , that thd errors in the instruot- 
iona, ><ointed out amounta to reversible error; an.i that the 
caae ahould therefore be eubicitted to anothar jury. 
The judgiiient ia therefore reversed, and Cbubti reuanded. 

poveraed and ramandad. 


*ilJ Ic nol*«iolT fll i-ojs »ino8 »noJb t)«d Ji ^i to ;»iiri •vod« 
1>1«6 10 Ati>»b bas xiulai eri* iii t)©JXi/e»a dolrtw ,elun »T©dji 

iaoi^£i«Xo«£) tfl^ al i)»s^«ao tons^iXsAn x«Xirroi^i«q axi;^ 

.r .«0 .H ao;MA ^ osjaoixCn id6£ .XXI 68;^ li«aoH *▼ 'OO •a4ia0 

vJl;roin*B«i: no? baK .Oes ,XXI CSX naucfjaH 

diij doXttn lOonss^Xsan iJsXtfoX^icjsq od^ oS yio7oo«i ^ dlflixX 

a»ed itii£L suaet dotA^ snlaaeacoo xiajs ^«93«XXj» aci Jjs'xaxo*];) 

{;riO o^^oifiJ .v lottSAa ;«x/oeneii« sX ^^saXo^ 

jj. e4iu4iO«d ^ei/oixoncfe oeX« si floJt^oua^sni «ii i' *(J6X «XXI 

•dsrl^r xloXilw iuodA ^X.0«£ao»h a^(;f sniniaonoo ^ojal a asau/a*^ 

i>96^809r arf;^ ^xixf^ -<;Xdin«n ,eo(X6^Xvo erl^ nx ^oiXlaoo a ai 

• StuXaao^ j^Xq Taaix/sX^i^q ii Ja booit » M.k. iiil«V8j 

'^Ab.L .,Mia»i^i> kiM ^oal^i ^0i DOS 8 •••H BaoiiOtTiSial 

lo J«||X% eii<; oai^noo ^on oi3 x»^^ ^■S'^t^ < 7X««4ui ^Jo^iiu^a aao 

»iioi^£i«XoaJ> 0£{.' I ido eonaiXXjtofl *<^^ ^^ y'^^'^oo^'i 

-40in*«fli arfif at artouxa i>ii^ tfisill ^ aoiaXqo la ai* ai^ 

axl,? tati^. iXdiatatvett ocf aj-nuom* *)jo bnfaio^ ^anoi 

'iXmcfjua ecf eiolaiad^ bXx/oaa aa£0 
,bt>aievaa aaolaxaii^ ai ^naaijtJbxri. a4T 

'•;9*.r! 9VC*':- 


SECOND DISTRICT. \ ''*'■ I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuPPY, Clerk of the Appellate 

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereop, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 

day of ■ in the year of our Lord one 

thousand nine hundred and 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 


\ ^, 




Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixtyday of April, 


in the year of our Lord one thousand ninarhundred and 
twenty, within and for the Second Dist]^et of the State of 
111 inoi s : 
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pral iding Just ice. 

H04. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Jlistice 

Hon| OSCAR E, HEARD ,/Jus t i ce 

I / 



, s/eriff. /T* Q A 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on 
^^^ ^ ' the opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following, to-wit : 

No. 6790. 

L. R. Parkdr, 'frubta* of Araarioaii 
TJfaJaa & rjavinga j,ank of 
Baoine, Wlaoonain, 

J. S. Hand, Charlau R, Carparteer, 
ChiiXlaa y., Padsn, 'Villiaj'. S. 
pa dan and Sunny brook Farm 


Appeal froru LakA. 

219I0A. 634 


Opinion by l^IEFJiUP, J. 

In thio caae a t)lil in equity was filed originally 
by Thomaa Fagan a.fc truntee In bankruptcy of the Futste of 
Charles R, Carpenter, Tartrupt, againet the apf.elleefc> J. S, 
Hand, Chi:.rles R. CArp.enter, Charlea M. Paden, wiilib.-. S. 
Paden and Sunnybrook Farm Sanitariut* The object «aB to 

fcet aaide certain Kortgugeo ;;iven by Charle* H, Carf enter to 
J, S, Hand, aa fraudulent , The court auntainea t. riamurrer 

tc the bill; ami by leave of court, &. av.ppleR,«ntaj. till ^'a8 
thereupon filed by Fagun uu truotee in bankruptcy lor the 
U8tt of the appellant L. TI. Parker. ' demurrer wo p aleo 

auetained to thio supplemental bill. By leave 01 court the 
appellant as trustee of the An'erioan Traces & Ravin^jb Bank 
of Raoine, V/locon*in, "?ae aubstitutel ac ornplainpnt , and 
filsd an an.©nded and a\xppl«rr>entai bl*l, tc »«hich tha 
appellant again filed a aai'urrer. This denairrrtr wan also 

sustained by the court; and the bill diamissed for want of 


.oeva .OF 

6tf«intT .^ibAli:^ ,H .J 


.ff aeXiijrfO ifcfl^ .8 .L 

4^88 .A.ieig ; 

XXIju/i^alio JbsXil eaw Yi^Xupa ai IXicf i; d«£0 .^IriJl nl 

'fTSinaXq ^ avaeX xd ^ae »Xilcf aiU o;J 

d'aisXXsciqA »;f^ lo t»au 
ijec^adinsX'^qLfa al(l:t oJ Lsrrijs^aua 

■;y^' ^niaiiooaiW ^tnjtojsfl lo 

hitA ^•tn^mM as buLlI 

-T.zu.'nBt A i>eXil aim-^n ;tn«XXeqq« 



equity. Froci the deor^e diamlaelng tht> bi^.! thlu iip^a&i 

ie ^.roaecutdd. 

The laet aroenacjU ai^i aut/pleji-ent;-.! bixi aliegeo that 
Thomaa A. Fii.2an at» trubtcs in b<ii.ijKxuptoy of Charxee R. 
Carpenter, Bankrupt, on 'rscerr.ber 13, xjxb, :iii.8d hit. original 
bill cf ccKpiaint a^in«t the acpeileea, praying t)...t cer- 
tain nortga^e* (jiven by aai'l Carpenter to the appeiiea J. S, 
hana tijht be ^st aeiie, i« irauauiant; ana reoitaa the 
oourutt of th« piaaaing; tha .justaining of the asiaurrar to 
th9 firrtt "bill; an<i the fiiinj or i/.e 7i-riouB ai'.nnded .'nd 
supplaaental blxi«, a/i.i ihs juwtaining ox' defuurrera tlierato, 
Tha blii th«n aliagaa, that on the yth i:j.y of Apxia. J.-15, 
Carpintar .vaa th« ifinex in id9 air., xa, un i in pouueauion 
of certain r«ai cistr;.tQ .vhich ia ddrioribdii, ^i1iuat«^d in the 
county of Lake; and that on the 6th day of January xTiiS, 
Tfani, clain.«d to b« a cr-dltor cf Curpontsr in the uui.^ of 
$7000, OC; and uloO olaiiaed to bd entitlta 1 to reosiva from 
Carpenter aa tru'^xee of i,h8 eat;i.xe of Mary A, Ileind, tl.o liuiu 
of '!^3500.00 for luoney advarioed and paid i:y hiiu aa trustee 
for the uaa of Oarpanteri that Fand hela no ^euurity ;.'huT<- 
so aver for the aila>^;ad indentednaaa, aith^jr a» an inaividuul 
or aa truj^teei tfc- t or. r.ha date riantior.ed for th« ^ui'x^cae 
of laouring 4aid indebtedneaa of J^7000,00, and aaid indebted 
nase of 13500.00, tha niortgagea in question ^sre ex^outed 
and leiivared to Hand; th.t the .uortjagea were dixtal the 
13th day of Spptsiober, l'wl4; but Aar« In faot exeoutrtd and 
dellvared on the 0th day of January 19i5j ana were ante dated 
for the furj.caa of hindaring lalaying and defrauding Carpen- 
ter* a oreditora; th^t on the 6th day of January iJit, 


i^.iii OBgsXIjB XXiJ .. ';crft©;a»Xqqi;e uru b'. 
•i^js , iniBi.g«oo 10 XXicf 

.offtt-,;-*;. 4. xc , , .'.X/cf Xjfc;Ji»&ai»Xn'-li^« 

^oBjeiXje npritf XXld erfT 

(Cit.x x^£unj»l> 1o x^ <^^c> *^^ ^^ ifjGXiJ' 

heiJiXjBXo ,tn^pr 

••^»:r i 5;oi OO.OOflC^ lo 

-jjiiiiw '{.fizuowfe Bit i>i,8fl i>aah Jrm;f ^aaJne^jiijD lo aai/ ^rt^ ^ot 

■ ■' • .1. 


*i»-»«i***i* «;».)»<> ac/*^6!»jup ft* 6 ©an; j00#008et *>o seen 

'/^ dfo/; faeajejJttQii »rl;r r he^itivlXtoi. has 


Carpenter vjaa injjivanti ani had ooan iiiscivant a; ^±1 tiinea 
Binca and before the 19th iay of fiaptflmbdr, 1914; .hnt aald 
KiOrtgajfeB and each cf t'i.em, ojerated as ai pB»f«r9nu», aon- 
trary to the providiozi of the Act* cf Cotif.reaa reiatlrii; to 
Bankruptcy, un^i that Harul, at each ar..l all llmea, had r«a»- 
orable oauee to believe, that Carpenter v-aw ineolvent; and 
that the enforceiJient oi" ^aid tranafero of property ty mortgage 
would affect a preference contrary to tl'^e proviBion of aald 
Acte of ConKreea, and that the mortgagee were therefore 
ff.ade with the intent and for the purpoae of hindering de- 
laying and defrauding Carpenter's creditora^ ani therefore 
null and void as ag;ainut euch oreaitors* That tha real 

tidtate dedcribed in iht iaortg;'.ge«j, .vus h. part of tjn= uaaeta 
of car>;©nter*a bani:rupt djtate, and paaee.l tc A, Faga 
as truatae in dankruptoy, who thereupon beo;w«a veatci.i v?ith tk« 
right to bring appropriate action or actione to havs said 
iiiortgai»tt, and daoh of th-.n., r^idoved aa olouls u,.on the title 
to aaid ianOi and tnat on the Uth ;lay of April 191.^^ .within 
four ttontha after the recording of tlie mortgageis a voluntary 
petition in bankrUi^toy /.at filt^d ny Charlea R, Carpentar; and 
therdaftar on tha dth day of April 1915 that aald Carpenter 
was duly ad^ludged bankrupt by tne district court of the 
United State for the F.aatern District of Wijconain, and 
Thomas A, Fa^an duly elected trustee in bankruptoy of the 
Eatate uf aaid bankrupt; and quaiified a« auoh; and that 
on the 4th livy of January ^917, Fagan aa Trustee, in 
pursuance of m orde.r of ocurt in aaia bankruptoy prooeedinge, 
executed acknovvl tidied and delivered bis proi-v^r Jhed ounrey^ 
ing to one Wallace Ingaiie for the ••al aetata dencribed in 



-noi. . 


lit* tdv 

^»#v^cj i- 




■> 4..ii,-^^i\\ fi>^r4i.MM.- bJ.v i^j jn. 

th€ rtortgrige in question, tonjether with ail interes^t vl every 
kind and ieacriptiun .vhi©h the oaid Thorcae A, Fagar ae Huoh 
trudtoe haa in aai^ raax Biituta^ "fhio>; deed wa;-; duxy rccorii- 
• d^ an^i that on the aaite day the bai:i Insalla and hiu '.vi:''o 
Eaana J. Ing»i,xa axecutod tiUKnowleilgbd ar.a aulivux^ed th^ir ieed of conveyanca tc tha appellant, uu trvutod ol the 
bank luentiuned lur a^-l but«ir ilgut^titld ana intiereut in culd 
reai. e^Late^ which de&d '-yud also duly ra^^urded; air.i tiiut 
the a^'pellaiit thereby bboaibb vaoited v,it: all i,ha xi^^ht tiile 
and ^nt;drddt in arui to c<aid rdal t^stats, and v.ith thu ri^-ht 
to pi'oudJutti an<.A loaintain tiM« aotiwn* Tiid oi^l alac 

allo^ea, that un tiia iuy luantiunSwif hAg9.u as truetea in 
banKi'uptuy, pursuant to ax: ordei' ul tho uouxt, xiKev^lHe ;.'-ijieilgn- 
ed Uiia tranttr^irtiu bu aaid "axi^ace Ingulle all claiuiu anti 
demands b-sloix^in^ tu aaid hanx^rupt sst'..te, incluuiix^ axl 
aotiona, rights ji aoticn, 4;i?.u»«}kb ol" aotiun ol every i-.ature 
and .-aaoriptxou , twoxi vemtwu in wa,\.a 'v-iusitea xii, 
which included thb i'ltjht tu prodacute ai. acti'-ni tu -ei u.iiie 
the ji.oxtgagda in tiueation* Ana thr..t Ingaiia u.ade an 

aeaisniuert of each rijht tu the aj^vpeliant, •i.haraby api.'foliant 
beuuj.t; viiated Aith all thu r.'.^htit -.vhich 'j>ala truatftb in butik- 
ruptijy hci, to have £jui.l i..oxtgage bwt auids, and dHoiared 
Told aa unldrtrui preleranoQa, Thsro aio othor alidgaliona 

in the bill, but thoo^ referrad io gDrni tha o?.oiu for Uit 
qua fit ion vthicb ia presantei to us for .ibterruinatlon or* thla 
api;rtali naaely, whether the a^.pallant oy the d&oAa referred, 
to ounvaying thts rea* autate to hiu., u,nu oy the aaaigni'.ente 
set forth in the bill, aoquired tha legal rl^ht to orin^i and 



...._- ;.:.ii9Jb 
-. .i'JlrfW 

jf^eup ill ab-^sTui xo^ ndi 

... Sli 

eleitq Xxxlwiilxii ot 



maintain thla aotlon to have the cortgagea in question d«t 
aside as fraudulent preferences under the Bankruptcy Act, 
The act of preferring one creditor over another, «hen the 
debtor ie Inaolvent, is not of itaeXf a fraudulent act, 
under the lawa of thla states it becomes so only under the 
provieiona of the Federal Bankrupt Act, for the purpoeea of 
th-t act. Asauning that the appallaa. Hand '«'ae preferr- 
ed as a oreditor in the giving of the mortgagee in question, 
and that such preference was in co&fliot vvith the provis* 
ions of the bankruptcy act, and beoaH.e thereby fraudulent 
under that act as to the other oreditore of Carpenter; the 
duty to apply the legal remedy is placed by bankruptcy act 
on the trustee in bankruptcy; and he, and he alone, is 
Tested with the power to act, if in his judgment a proper 

case ie presented for the performance of such duty; and 
when ha acts, it is for the benefit of all the oreditore. 
Federal Statutes Ann. Page 1036 f^ec. 60 b ani page 1132 Sec, 
67 e. It is apparent therefore that the mortgages in 
queation, although voidable, were only ao at the instance of 
the trustee, and in connection «ith the bankruf*oy proceed- 
ings; and for the purpose of aecurln<y the relay a mora 
equitable adjustment of the claims of creditors. It is 
well settled, that a trustee in bankruptcy cannot assign to 
another this ri^rht and duty to institute and prosecute legal 
proceedings to wet aside a preferential transfer of property, 
which is made fraudulent by the bankrupt act, B«idinR~Hall 
Mfg Co V. ifsroer A f. Lumber Co. 175 ^ed. ^ep. SSf); 
Lovell v. Latham & Co. 831 Fed. Rep. 374; 
Glenny v. Lan-jdon 98 U. S, 20; 



'3JE<S'^^ = 

'•;cainad p itoi 


aXd«biOv figi/mUijB ^aoi»e»irp 

i;§Xu iiXfil !b«£(^#nj^ 

j.«5d .V iievoJ 

Trimble v, Woodhaad 102 U. S. 647, Lovoland on Bankruptcy 
lat. Edition pa^e 488; Collier on Bankruptcy 11th, 
Edition pas« 918; Lane v. Wiokeraon 99 111, 384; 
Le Seure v. T'gaver 108 111, App. 616, Fron. the author- 
ities cited. It l8 clear, that the aiipellant did not, ana 
could not by the conveyance of the real estate alleged in the 
bill, and by the aaeignitenta therein narrated, acquire 
the rishta and duties of the trustee in bankruptcy to pro- 
secute and lU' intaln thia euit and in Ita present forni i» 
not a suit for the benefit of crBciitors. The demurrer 
was properly auatalned; and the lecret disDiiaafcilg the bill 
for ^ant of «quity , la affirmed. 

naoree affir&ed. 

to;fqi/a liaise no Jb«*X»v©J iV;^d . , i taerftoof .v eXdmliT 

,rtJiX voi^uiJineiH no leirioD ^981^ agaq aottib2. ,iBi 

i>8S ,XiI ee nocxfciioi oJ JSXE? e^iiq aol*lb3 

-lotiiuA 6{iS mof^ .8ia .qqH ,XXI BOX TsrAe^ .v eiA^a nJ 

i>n« t*on ftifc *itJ3XXeqq« a: ^i£oin ^batto tttlit 

•Ai ai hasaXXA e.tj3it«s Xjsei •ff;t to Bon-exf^vnoo 9di yd ^on bLuoo 

eilirpajs ^ivBitjEsiijBn nisTorf* 8;tn9JirT5iae« 9di ycf iinjs «XXl(f 

-oiq o* yo*qin3{nad nl ©6^8ui:;J ©rf^ lo ti»iifui> iin^ s^rf^ia arf^ 

ml araol ^fl»«eiq e^i nX baa ilm Bidi atsial «« i>a» mifuo^i 

tenunaft erfT ,erro*tfcS50 lo ;tjtlenecr erfit itol tix/t a ioa 

iltd a/f^ ;;^;hABai:j:&Xi esnosL Bd& bne ^Jb^ni^^Bue yXi«qoTq aav 

,;n»anJ:!tl£ fil » y*Xup* lo ;tn«w lol 

.isstaiilt^ »eio»r: 


SECOND DISTRICT. ( ^^' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFY, Clerk of the Appellate 

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing- is a true copy of the opinion of the 

said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my ofBce. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and aflBx the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 

day of in the year of our Lord one 

thousand nine hundred and 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 


Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the s/xth day of April, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand lAne hundred and 
twenty, within and for the Second Di/trict of the State of 
II 1 i rio i s : 

Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, p/es iding- Jus t i ce . 

\ / 

^^. Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS , /Jus t i ce . 

'^Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD ,/ Jus t i ce . 

^ / 


CU^T S. AYERS, Sheriff. ^ m 

219I.A. 634 


BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on 
' ' the opinion of the Court was filed in 

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following, to-wit: 

219I.A. 634 

Gen. No. 5331. 

Hero FariiAC* CoB<pa.r.y, a.-'pslla.rt. 

V6 Arpca-l from }l~nTy, 

Sohool Diraotcrs of Dlat.riot Kc. 
41 cf Ilcnry County, Illlnol-T. 

Niehaub, J. 

In thin oaoo tl-B appelleos 3ohcol Direotcrc of Dlatrlct 
No, 41 of. nenry Count.--, r^ntarei i.vito u contr:..ct. oi^ii the appellant 
Haro Furn&oe Comriany, lindflr tho torrno of =-hioh ths r.Tior?llar."^ 
b.;]rr.?di f.:r ths 3um of (1,1^. CO to Inati-i:. a 'k/rc Furnace, in 'he 
sohocl houarv of 01 at 'lot !Ic . 41; uni -[^ucr-.nteeA, *nat t^.t iurnao9 
";l"it;n ina''--uHsd ^^" 'r'hft oornr;b;iny -vould >»f;'i,t the oohocl hour.-j -co 70 
laiTsas 5^hTenh9ii5 in ^he ooiie3t •.vaa'tlier; kcrp ^hc floors warn: that it vould (ieat t'.is rooc; e'-'enly. The guaranten vras -rade upon 
'oi)s ooaiiUion, D-ut tiie cppelloea woull kfiop the bui j.iir.p; in 
'thi'jli the ruinuoe v;ua ing'/Ulled in a reaeoiubly tight ocndition 
(meaning tight founiationa, fiocra, vviiTlCflj, io-rf> ?. n 3 oeillnga.) 
Tho furnaoa * aa installed in Iht school hoage an ler the oor.tra-ot, 
but it .t>.g found fif^t it would not haat thi?. aohcol room f-'<-n2y, 
nor to A v/^,r.uth o^ 70 iecreoi.. Fahrenheit, noT rfouli . -i- the 

.floore y^Tca, Thi appellee therefor- r-fusel to pcy th« appellant 
tho ikSiount !jl»..iji.ei tc bs tue ur.der "■ c oontr,'i.:3t, and this ;uit 
wad therefore corra^enoed in the cirouit court of Ticiry 'bounty. 
Tua trial of T,he c».eo resulted in ^. verilct c 1 ^ui^^-re^it in favor 
of the appelltjeo, from whioh ^n a^^peal is pro e-^ cute J.-. 

The only qu*»3tion ar,2;unl on arpca.! i«, •■ th^ verlicc ie 
contrary to th& evidence, and for *hat reason ough* to be 
revsrsud. It is claimed by the a.ppeilant, that if rhe furnaye 
i&,iiel /to lisat the sohooi room rtveniy, i-n i to t. warmth of 7C icgrees 
Fahrenheit; and did not keep t \e floora .T&rm, l,t .r-.s beciuae, 
the appellee hii.d failed to keap tha aohooi building in a reaec-ibly 

■iOJtll'Xii'i OI'JH 
*Cl£.i.l F . i » Oft 

--.i.r- "1 Xocric : 

T-^at or * r rftrfr.?.'^ je c:t ion 

.beJyosBotq ai Iji_ c.ilw aioi'i ,e*bX*oqqja arid- ^o 

•^■'5-'-. ,.?«7.^; ..'.•: o.t in... ,Yi-nev.*. mooi Xoorict ..:■!■ J-aSil o:?. taXiji'l 

tig";;1; cc-.ii'-ion, *a rsquix-A oy t..t co)ii;.ri,«.-)t. ^rxisther r-.iie appellee 
iii, or .11 i not, '-:>.£ ,. Ci^iwi-tiun of luot * c r ;:he jury; ^^r.a ; ;ie Jury 
hotkrd fevlisrjud oonuaraiii;;; tiitft rsiuttex. picoXb bitc*;, i,;i^t 
ti,p..)oiii!t«i», i-ropurat^ry to the pul ting in oi" the» wvcr-r.?.uledl 
tue aohool buildiiig; tbw wesa-tVxur -a&i'c ij,onc cvtr; touj-iiing 
va-per yai ur.dtii •'ihe wetitli^rtci-rd*;; c,x-i nc-w tce^t.-er boardsj put en; 
t'~;t? 1 oujioi-tiout' vfcrc i;i.i. chod Uj, ill oOii.fc place**, ^a~ :io.-i.G dcv. in 
Oul'itsr tjl£~ooo; tLi.t ti.tjrt v.'crt^ i.e.* .vii.aowu pvo iii, ^.i.J i. i.e., acor 
cr. t^c lu.iij.c , :ht;rt. T.x-si t- rca&ciii-tle .^Ixort r.-Je by Ihe 

:».i'peIIeCG to put the ti-ilding ii; u rt-j-feOLAbiy light ooaa-lticdt 
Whether ■tiibae rt.-f lr>. i.i.A u.ittri.t:cn6., ..i..". i-(nortuj.o oi f rjfe 
bxiij-diiit; i.t.-.. roucluTiciii., put V-.e Li^ij-diiij, ir. a. i '.-a,tOij£.bly right 
conaitlcn ;ri.f? t^t; qut-tetic:: ir. ','cntrovori;y . Ti;..« jui> *Lo "aeaicL 
tiic ovidonoe ^vx.d i^u.v ti.e witncu&se, iouna t,iia,t the ouillirig jra-e 
iii roa-dCiiably tigr.t ocnlitlcr. wlisn tht furr^c-oii v:^,8 i.o u.-t^. 
Tlitre is> GUi.'xiolor. t evluencs cr. ~h£.t pclj.t 'in ■..ic reocrd 'ic 
v.'urruu; t.;e ^ury in rouching Vmi- veriiTt, , Thiu oour' ■.■cula 
lio*. be Jaatiflcid tlicrafoiu in holiirig tLut the v&rlict Li ;-:^nifestly 
agulnat "^-he veislit vX? M-s evllenco. The judgc-*-;r:t i;. afzlr^^cd. 

,. '! • ^L1L 

..ii- •!?-;, no:. sutTSiiva Lnt^ari 

..Vli tt.l;, .UJOl 1;T-. ^i:; it- £ tii'J 

L • . . . "31:^^-; :i i .:. . ■ > ici 

yita? r.-,Ii *i-«i;^ 'dd .ton 


SECOND DISTRICT. f ^^' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFY. Clerk of the Appellate 

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 

said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my oflBce. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 

day of in the year of our Lord one 

thousand nine hundred and 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 


Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day ofApril, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundrgP^ and 
twenty, within and for the Second District of/the State of 
Illinois : 
Present--The Hpn. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres iding->©us t i ce . 
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justicf 
HonAoSCAR E. HEARD, Justi 


219 i.^- Q^^ 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on 
} the opinion of the Court was filed in 

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and fig-ares 
following, to-wit: 

No. 6836. 

Muelier Grain Company, ) 
Appelloe; > 

) Appeal from peorla* 
Chicago, Burlington & Quinoy \ 

■Railroad Company, ' 

Appellant. ) 
Opinion by NIEHAUS, J. 



The appellee 'Juellor Grain CoiTipany, oon.irieoced thie 
■uit in the circuit oourt of Peoria county againet the appel- 
lant, Chloago, Burlington f- Quinoy Railroad Company, to 
recover for a osrload of oats, which had been lelivered by 
the appellee to the appellant for transportation froE Oak 
Hill, Illlnoie to Netrport News, Virginia; and which it le' 
alleged in the declaration the appellant failed to traneport 
and delivery whereby the a pellee lost the oatc» The 
first count of the leolaratlon ohargee, a failure on the 
part of the appellant, to safely carry and convey the oate 
to the destination; and th'9t ths appellant eoid and dlepoeed 
of them, and retained the prooeeda of suoh sale. The 
aecond count alleges, that the appellant carelessly, negll* 
gently and reckleesly herdli^d and inarag;ed the car containing 
the oats, and that on account of suoh negll'rence the ^;rain 
wae wholly destroyed, and rendered valueless. The 
appellant filed the general issue to the declaration, and the 
case prooee-lcl to trial, which reeultel in a verdict, and 
judgment in favor of the appellee for ^161P,59. Fron. this 
judgment an appeal is prosecuted. 


.aeea .oh 

( J ^n JBqnO ^t f ^-^ -r :' 1 « X r - r ;• V 

g g A ( .^n-IXeqqA 

* . ,aUAHai^^f Yrf nolnlqO 

zldi b9oa9smoo i7n«qao0 rtijBif) i&XXdijM ••XX»qq« adT 

-Xeqf^A »rf* ;^anl«s« ^fauoQ Mtro9°. Jo Jnwoo iMx/otlo erfj ni tlum 

oi ^riaaqtaoO bjiOTXi«fl yonl^P * no*2"iXijjS .cjjiojtriO ^;tn«X 

\M l>»t»viXd^ neoff fejiff rfoirfil ,#«^JiO lo Jb.<8oX'rj80 « lo"^ levo^ei 

ijiO aoil noi*A!ftoqafTj8iti' lo^ trrjiXXeqqia •rf;^ o* ••XX»qi* tdi 

"91 ti rfolxfw J)rtj3 iJBJtnXaai^ . '0.yw*Pf o* •lorrlXXI ^IXIH 

*toq»n*:tJ 0* AeXijBit ;>n«XXoqqji Brit not t/iij>.l09b •di rri fcejaXXji 

©rfT .aJjio 9rf* cfsol esXXeq « •ri^t 7«f»T«rf* ;TeviX«t l>n* 

9rfJ itc ^rultaJ » ,»o^ij9f{o rio.ritai.^Xoeh »rf* lo *nxA5o J^aiil 

•*J80 9rf.-f Y»v«oo l>rrj8 Y^tjso ipl»!t*8 o* ^JnM»XX»qqji erf* 1o *i:«q 

i)«»oq»j:Jb ^f^JR ^Xoe *n«XX»qqjB erfif isdi btiM ;fio2;tjRnl*e«Jb •ff;t o;t 

•ilT ,0X48 rfoue lo 8f>»»ootq 9ii fcsrtJta^ei in* ^marf* \o 

•^iX^sct ^v-^»«eXe*s«o ^fnjiXXeqq* ed* JisrtJ ,e»j»XXJB drti/oo tnooas 

Saiffi«*noo -xso erft f>esjsn«m JhirA fcf^Xhrtarf vXateXjCoe? bnn yXtrrej 

nlao;?; erf.-t eoae^lXgait do«» lo Jnx/ooon no >8rf;f fcnj» ^mtmo erfit 

9rfT .naeXexrlAv fcs-xdfcnsT ban ^^©YoaJiefc Y-tXorfw b«w 

s.lcr ban yttoltiMi&io^b BAi oi tifsti XjittsrteTj •?(* heXlT: *fr*XX«qqjii 

bfl« ,*oH>i:8v « rri: tJs^J-Xysert ffolrfw ^iMttt oS bsheeooTq ••ao 

• irf* .aoxl ,9S»SI8X0 iO"i WXXt'qqji «iri+ lo aov^B^ cri *^»i^IS^u(. 

tl>ej'£/oeeotq si Xie»qq« riji tnera^Jj(, 

It is contended by the appellant, that the appellee 
had no right to recover beoauee under the terme of the bill 

of lading, which w&e ieeued by the appellant for the trani^ 

portatlon of theae oata. It ^aa a condition precedent to a 

recovery, that the apj^ellee make a olaim for the loea in 

writing to the originating or deliverins carrier within six 

nionthc after the delivery of the peopdrty, (or in oaae of 

export traffic) within nine montha after delivery at the 

port of export; or in case of failure to rnake delivery, then 

within aix monthe (or nine months in oaee of export traffic) 

after a reaaonable tine for delivery hae elapsed. The proof 

ahowa, th?t the oats in question were tranaported for export 

traffic, but were never delivered at the port of export; 

that the appellant wae the originating carrier; and the 

Cheaapeake & Ohio T^llroad waa the delivering carrier; th: t 

the C,C,0, Sc 8t, L, Ry. Co« waa the connecting carrier; that 

the car containing the oate was wrecked while in transit on th? 

C.CC & St. 1. Railroad; and had therefore never paseed Into 

the control of the C. & Railroad for delivery at the deeti- 

nation. The appellant received the oata on the bOth day 

of Auguat 1917; on the 10th of NOvewber 1917, after the 

appellee had received notice from the C.C, & Pt, L. Ry. Co. 

of the wreck of the car containing the oata it filed ita 

claim for danagea with that company; no claim waa filed 

with the appellant. The notice of the claim which waa filed 

with the C.CC A St, L. Hy. Co. -'aa tranamltted however to 

the appellant; and it had in ita poaeeeaion and produced on 

the trial the original claim papera which had been filed with 

the C, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. ^e are of opinion, that the 


XXi ) tm^t* edi: tobcxu eex/JBoed zevopei o* *rfgli on Jbj|/1 

-•n*n* »rf* 101 *fl«XI»qq» erf;f ^cf tci/sai sjbw rfoJtrfw »jxilfc*X lo 

aeijeotiq fioiJJtJbfioo jb e*w :fl »a*JBO ^ej^f^f .%p aolt»iiQ% 

rti BSoX d-'fJ- Tol mJtjBXo js e;;{«ai eeXXeqqjs odd- (tjftrii ^YsevooftT 

xl8 xiJtrf;fiw tBl%r£0 grcJtaeviXffc to sni^isnXaiio ©rU oi snitflxw 

lO 9GJ50 nl lo) ,tf*lfcqO©q erfi 10 x^^V-lXtt »ti<i a»*l* ■rfJnom 

:a6vlXeJh i©*1j5 •rtJnon enin nlrf;M^ (ojt11*i* ^loqxt 

rttrf* t)ft6VxX«Jb e;fl[*Tt oj eTi/Xlfll lo ©a-ao al to i^ioqx* lo *ioq 

(omjei:t ifioqxo lo ea^o ai adinom enln 70) sd^nom xXa nid^lw 

looiq dn'T •i:>e«q.8Xd siui ^iBViXftJb 70l tini^ sXcfAnosAei jt %&91« 

troqxe 101 hbiTrzoqanjiz^ ©vvw noi^^cej/p cri tif^o t((>t tjtdi ^awodp 

;daoqxe lo d'aoq oxiJ' ;tji £>oi9vX.X0x> aeven eisw iud ^ulWrnxi 

9ili j&n« ;xsJlii«o sniitjutlsXio ed;r d«w !fn«IX&qq« trf^ isAi 

i--A^ ^zsliiao S"^19VXX9J> exf:^ ajiw X}jBOiXijiH olrlQ >& aaljieqAaedO 

t£Ai ^leittijso gni^oennoo tdcT e«w .oO .yii .J .^8 ib *0*0.3 BCli 

»iii no tlaaAxi al aXidw t9^09in a£vr a^jio ail^ gnXalA^noo i«o ad;r 

o;rtit .oaaajsq asven aioleiarfit f)*ri £>i« 4ij«oiXJl*J3 .X .#8 A .O.O.O 

-Jt:tBaJb arftf rf^a if^eviXel; toI £)«oiX1jbH ■& «0 aittf lo XoxJnoo ad^ 

Yjg^j xl;t'Ob' 8cf;f no Btso ^rli bertB09i itrrjiXXtiqqji axIT ,aolijta 

adJ tis^ljs ,VXex itcfiaavoK lo rftfOX ari;^ no ;VXex itiu^A %o 

• oO ,0.0 ad* moil eoX*on beviaoea Jb*d aaXXaqq* 

»fi DsXil il ad-AO ad;^ :^alatjiiaoo tjao Bdi lo ioaiw ad* |o 

i>i»X.: .viiv^q^oo *Ad* d*lw aa^janjit lol 0X4X0 

^e-t^ :? 10 aoX*on adT .*«j»Xlaqqji ad* d*Xw 

l: levawod ts**ifiianj8a: .oO .^H .•! .*a il •0,0,0. td* d*lw 

no £i60xd>oiq bas noiaaaeaoq e*X ai bMti ii trtju 4*n*XXaqqja ad* 

doXdw Biitqsq, ailMlo i»ui^i^(i •At i4t%t |b4* 

,jO .yH .J .*8 A .C . c?d* 

notice of the olaim filed with tbe C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. 
whloh -vaa the oonneotin^ oarrlar in this oaee, must ba 

oontidered under the olroumatanoee, ae notioe to the appell- 
ant, who wae the originating or initial oarrier: The 
oonnectlng carrier ie the agent of the originating or 
initial oarrier for thia purpose; Northern paoific Ry. Co. 
▼. Wall 341 U. S. 87; C.R.I. & 8. Ry. Co. v. Linger 156 
S, W. 396; Overton v, C. etc. Co. 160 S. W. ill.; 
Lewellyn v. P. li. Ry. Co. 185 111. Arp. 1?1. Hovyever under 
the Cunjtiine r>roviao to the Carniaok Amendment of the Inter* 
at&te Conuneroe Act, which waa paaeed March 4th, 1S15, no 
notioe or filing of olain i» neoeeaary, where the injury 
complained of, or the lose or of grain in tranelt, 
ie the reault of oareleaeneaa or negll'^ence by the carrier; 
Conover v. iVabaah R, Co. 308 111. App. 105. And thia oaee, 
in addition to the proof of the delivery of the oa-te in queat- 
ion ae an Interatate ehipiuent to the e.ppellant, ae initial 
oarrier there wae proof of failure to deliver to the con- 
aignee. The failure to deliver to the oonalgnee la pre- 
aumptive evidence of negligence, snd oraated a liability 
under the Carcaclc Amendmenti Galveeton H. & 8. A. Ry. Co. 
▼. Wallace; 323 U. S. 481. The proof of negligence waa 
therefore aufficiant; Chicago & 7., I. R. R, Co. v. 
Colllna T>roduce Co, S35 Fed. 857; Nono Tuok Silk Co. v. 
Adama Expreae Co. 166 111. App. 519; 111. r^yxstom ^alloring 
Co. V. Adame Expreaa Co. 158 111. App. 374. And under 
theae oirour.etancee it -.taa not eaaential to prove notice 
of olala or of the filing of a olalm at a condition precedent 
to a recovery. 


.;*«fnnoo ef(# ijaw rfoWw 

:T9J;T"rsc Xslr^/ " nlvJtTo ♦rf^f 9cmv odw ,Jfl* 

. .'• iT9 . . I*S XXjiW .y 

;.iXI , . . nocrasvC jSPS .W ,8 

. . ,oO .^fff .* , . ::x^lBKtd 

•<t&ii: eintndinA jIoj3iijbO 8rf!^ o* otivoie •niJWU/O 8fl;t 

on ^ai0I ^rfj* rfoi-8M bsae^q &*?/ rfoJtrfw ^rf'oA •o^teaiinoO e*4*B 

vtu^at mit »i»avv ^YUaseeosn ai initio lo srclXil tto aoi^on 

^.m^a^-.■'U' ni aie:;/- io »^»jRft to vaoX drfit TO t%o h»nlMlq,iaOo 

;7«lTTfO ^flj- vcf »0fT9"rJ^,C:?prf TO ajiansttoXeiAO 'lo tXjjaai »rfi •! 

.^c^i c = ;II SOS .oO ,-T rfBj»orjiW .▼ ^avOnoD 

-;f*a-r: looiq di* o;t. nol^ilihje ni 

;:^einqid[fl •^Ktfitsfiii fti 84 fToi 

L e»*iTc>t«aor , «ixjXI«1l triT ,a©«siB 

'l&tltdM.i ^»on»siXgafi lo •o/ietive avl^qax/s 

■f'^t'SflvXjBr iitnemJbnaaiA io*a««0 9tlS t&tau 

a^r 3on«r'iiie»-> ,x8* ,3 ,U CSS ;aojiXXj8W .v 

, , 'jyfaoirfO ;*.Toiomjja ©toleterfJ^ 

'T ofTftT, .j^^-^ aC8 .00 aoufcottr •rtlXXoO 

^rs ,c^qA ,XXI aaX .60 Maiqx^ sriMbA 

;?.X .(iO •«a4qx3 •^3«^il .v ,oO 

^nea iott bji9 ti t a o/t4 ^ a mxr Olio aadrfif 

ojrXo 4 lo srtlXJtl arfJ lo rto mIbXo lo 

•Xtavobit M 0* 

It is also coDtendad, th^t the proper measure of 
damages to be applied in thle oase> vae the one provided tor^ 

in the bill of lading; namely the value of the property at 
the plaoe and tine of ehipment, ft Is well aettled that in 
an action brought against a carrier for lose of goods which 
are destroyed before reaching the plaoe of oonsigiunent the 
nieaiure of dan^ges ia the value of the goods at the point of 
destination; Canadian Pacific Hy. Co. v. "^eland 236 fed, 670 
MoCaull - Dinsmore v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 352 Fed. 664, 
In this case the oata had been eold by the appellee to the 
Wheat Export Company of New York for delivery at Newport 
Newe at 71| cents per bushel • <rhe oats therefore had a 
fixed value at Newport News, the point of destinstion, name- 
ly , the price that the appellee would have received there- 
for at that plaoe un.ler his contract of sale, and that was 
appellee's actual damage, which he was entitled to recover, 
and which he did recover by the tsA verdict and judgment. 

Appellant also contends, that the court erred in 
admitting in evidence the papers embodying the claim filed 
by the appellee with the C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. for the 
lose of the s^aln in question. We are of opinion thp.t 
this evidence 'vas properly adsiitted, Chicago & EI R. R, 
Co. V. Colllne produce Co. Supra. 

The judgment is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 


4I01 bBblvo'tq »no »rf* ajsir ^9nM0 Btsit at bellq;i« ©cT oi aasjurut 

J« r#a»^0"i<J •rf* ^o »u£av »di ^iBauen ii^tbJiL lo Xllcf Brfi nl 

jcii t»ii3 hQlttbi raiKiqlcift lo ©mJ-* bnm ©ojiXq trii- 

rfoJtrfw a^ooji lo aaoX tot isiTi^o a tBaiM^a td'^M&td ttottt>» rtM 

9tii SabOR'gteRoo 'io eo<eIq tdt -gnlAos^'x •tot^d' he^o^^**^ *'Z' 

!):e ;^^i;oq Bdi- &m shoos tdi to aulxv tdi cl Be^«ai.a& "to eix/isss 

0?3 .Jbet 888 An*XeX'? .v .oO .yff blTiioJi^r njBlJb«iT«0 ^ROt&aaltM^ti 

.♦aa .*tf 8?.S ,00 ,5ffl .<T .*8 A .M .0 .V ©TOmaKin - XXuaOoM 

Bdi ot ••XXeqq« ^dt ^d hXos (rescf l>jBf( bSmo 9d& ••jbo •irf;f nl 

i-aoqws'^I *JB x'i^'^^^^t to "J j{toY wall 1:0 YH^'flKo'^ ^oqx3 ♦«trll 

J8 frjBri 8to"i»t»ff* a^jiO trt.i» , iBdenjd T«q tSTtao ^XV cTjr aweH 

-•injifr ^nojtiffjnlJsef^ to i-nloq erf* »iwe"5J J^toqwsK #■« ti/XjiT ftexit 

'*^:rerf;f jseviaoet evjBri bXuow aaXXsqqji 8rf? ^;srfcf «oitq ad* , vX 

B*w ^«rftf bnM ^t^£Ma to ;to«t:frTOO eiif rBtaa toJiXq **rf* *« tot 

jiavooat o* baXJitrre 83i» 8r( rfoldw ,as<^ti«t> Xawto* a'aalXaqq* 

.Jnarngbifj; ban Joibtev itxt arft ^cf tevooet bit af( dolrfw bn* 

nt batta *tjMO act;t *jBrf* ^abrratnoo oaX« trxjsXXaqqA 

bsXl'> mtxio 9di snJt^bocfina ataqjsq arf* tonabive nX •^ttttttmbM 

•di tot .00 .yH .J .*a 4 .0 .0 ©rf* riJXw eaXXaqq* arf* ycf 

;fj!Xf* noXnXqo to ©-^ ,rToJt*eex;p nl nljitj arf* to aaoX 

4 o:gaolf*0 ,be*i^itafcjB if-t^»qc'*>:q •JW* •Offabira •tdi 

,j6tqy8 ,00 aoubottr anlXXoO .▼ .oO 

.b«ntlttjs el (fitaniBbtrt ^i^f 

^bainti'ttji cirtaffljjbtrTi 


SECOND DISTRICT. \ ^^' I, C-HKISTOPHER C. DuFFY, Clerk ol' the Appellate 

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 

said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in m}- office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 

day of in the year of our Lord one 

thousand nine hundred and 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

• / 



i<QW t>i%ik>'' pia^ 


Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth da'iJi^' of October, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine huftdred and 
twenty, within and for the Second Distric^^'of the State of 
111 ino i s : 

Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presidiftg- Justice. 
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justi/e 
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Just^Be 
CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff 

2191.A. 635 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on October 
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the 
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following-, to-wi t : 

Gen. No. 6775. 

The People, eto. Defendant 

in Error, 
vs. Error to L;ike. 

John Unger, Pl.intiff in Error. ^ ^ -»- a /^ r% f^ 


DIBELL, P. J. John Unger was indicted, tried 
and convicted for refusing to act as a special deputy sheriff 
when Bunmioned so to act under the provisions of the ..ct of 
July 1, 1887, to secure the peace and good order of aocfcty, 
etc., being paragraph No. 356h, Chc-jter 38, Kurd's Revised Stat- 
tutes, and was sentenced to three months imprisonment in the 
ocunty jail ani has sued out a writ of error to review the re- 

He contends that the recod is defective as to the emp;^.nejd.- 
m^^t of the grand jury which returned the indi:;tment. The State 
has filed an addition to the record, which is su reposed to c\ire 
the alle:;ed defect. But & more complete answer is found in 
People V. Munday, 393 111. 191, where it is held that the pro- 
ceedings for the empanelment of a grand jury cire not a part of 
jrhe record in tjiy particular criminal case, begun by ..n indic- 
tment returned by such grand j\iry, urJeas upon : motion to quash 
the indictment, or on some other proper motion, the defect is 
shown. The showing must also be preserved by bill of exceptions 
to present it for review. The record does not disclose that 
this suppose defect was presented to or ruled upon by the court 
belovif. It is therefore not open for discussion here. 

It is argued that the indictment is insufficient. Under 
the sto^tute on which this indictment was based, the sheriff ot 
a county must determined that in his judgment the preser- 
vation of the peaoe and good order of sooiety requires a number 


,:■;.:., J oj 1011; .8V 

lllrads xiuqQb liJiot-qe .0 e.s d-o.:3 ocf grtxeirlsT lolt Jbecfolvnoo tmi 

lo :?-L . f'rf^ lo enoielvoic: arid" 'lebujj :foji o;t oe biaomnsB nodw 

tY'^atooE ::o ijoog JbniJ 30£sq adi ettfOQa o& »V88I ,X xLul 

-d-jbd-3 ^eeivefl e^b'xnR ^QE 'laii/JifO «d85S ,oM dqiiogiiijaq grtjtecf t.ocfs 

edj ni d-nsranoeiriqrrsi eiltnom esttcf* o# Jboonecfnsa euw Lnx; jEei'ud' 

-81 ©rl* wsivsi oi- loiie Ic :l'i::vv i, f.uo beuB e.-id Ln--; Xi^t Y*njjoo 


-ilsfixrqme 9xl;f ol toslsiJ ai ijoooi sxf* tJid^ ebnocfnoc eH 

9j-j3ch8 odT .iaemtotbtit sdi baaiuteT dotdv Ytfirt Jt'n>^^ ^di- I0 :^tista 

soiro ot T0081 eild" 03' froi:Mt/L£ a.a beltt sjsxI 

lewen^ eiteXqmcc 010m .: c^0S .d-osleif LejieXIos s.di 

-o- iw jiei .III £9S »x-3i;njjM .v Qlqoe^ 

" nsccXoxiJ: qrae 3dt '^ol BgniLeeo 

-oxi/iii n^i. YO" ^^ i:rai*rc i^^Xuoltiiiq y^^ ^^^ biocei. edt 

dsBup Q& noltom .2 aocgj n^ng xloire x^ beaiutei ^noad' 

Bx c^08l8L exit ftfioitom 'xsqoxq laxia-o sraos no 10 ^taemtolbai ed& 

eaoiSq&vxe lo llta asaq acf oeX^ *8««n ^nlwoxle sdT .nwoxte 

:*-j5rfj OBoXoeiii ion aaou Jbioosi sxtT ,yieivei lol :ti taeaeaq oJ 

•xxroc odt Ycf xroqx; L'sXjLra no ot betaaeeiq sjaW JosisL seoqqi/8 aldd- 

.aied xioxaeuoelX) lo^ xieqo ton fiols^tsrl:?- ei tl .voXsd 

'xeXjnU ^neiollttyafll el tiiQflid-olJt>xix edi is^di boss^ii^ el tl 

ic ilitcexta 9dt ^b&B&d e3w taQsaiotbat z,ldt doidv no ed'x/cf-i.d-e edi 

beaimi'j&eb 9v...d J-ai/in y^^J^oo -^ 
■admsii uj eeixjj-psa Y*®-to©® ^o ^©liio Loog JbOE so^eq sdt 10 rtoit£v 

of apociaO. deputies, ho must form a judgment ag to the 
number oi wliioh tho exlgonciss of tho oaso require, i.nd he 
nay then aumrricn :..ny person to t^ot :^s such deputy, .nd if 
the peraon bo aummonod ahall refuse to act he ahull bo 
q^uilty of Li. ffiisdemei-nor, Seotion 6 of Division 11 of the 
Orinin...! Codo aia follows: "Evory indlotraent or uoouoation 
of the G^c;.nd jury be deemed auf f i^iiently technioLd 
und correct v/hlch st;-teB the offense in the term3 c^nd Icings 
ucLge of the statute croatinp: th:3 offense, or ;-,o pl..inly that 
the nature of the off jn3e mi.y be easily understood by the 
jury. This indictment contains aix counte. It i3 argued 
that the official chi-r>i jter of the officer v/ho atimrnoned def- 
endant is not sufficiently in the indictment, Klmer J, Green 
is therein described a;5 "The then gheriff of Lake County, 111:" 
al-30 a "Sheriff of said Lake County, Illinoi." In e.^jh count 
he i3 fretiuently described in those or very aircil r v/orda. If 
the indictment had used trfo more v/ord3 and had said: "Klmer J, 
Green, v/ho v^ ^ then ;ji.i there the shertff uf Lake County, III- 
inoia, " the criticism on that subject would h vo no foundation. 
We are of the opinion th t such is the mec.ninij of the /forda aot- 
u.-lly used, I^ id next argued th;..t it is not sufficiently aver- 
red th:t Green w. a the sheriff at the time that he summoned 
Unger and the latter refused to a.;t. To select lc.n£:uage at 
random from this iniictment, the t^ccond count says: "the said 
John Unger was then and thero summoned by Elmer J. Green, the 
then sheriff of Lake County, to act ag a upecial deputy sheriff,* 
and in the 6th count it re.i.ds: "then and there said sheriff, 
Elmer J. Green, summoned as one of said 3pe:;i:l deputies said 
John Unr:er." Similar li.n,^;u:'oie i.s contained in the oth^r counts. 
It i.i alac contended th.t the indictment doea not illc^o that :.t 
that time v/hen the sheriff summoned linger, it wa.^ the judgment 
of the sheriff that the peace ani good order of society ;-n-i the 
exigencies of the c:.3e iaquirod special deputies. The first 



-.0 LMttaiiV 

rn r 

'"■erf* fr i 

-trev--- vC- 


1/ nrfoX. 


count i.lleges thc.t Unger wa.3 summoned by Gr-^jen, then then 
sheriff, to aot c-s a speci:^! deputy sheriff, when in the 
judgment of the said Elmer J. Green, sheriff of said Lake 
County, Illincia," the preserv tion of the peace and good 
order of society required the surr.noning of a large number 
of special deputy sheriffs." The f if the count contains 
similar allegations and avers that that being the judgment 
of the sheriff, he summoned as one of the said deputies the 
said John Unger. To similar effect is the oth oount. E.oh 
of these co^^nts n .mes October 4, 1919, iinder a videlicit, as 
the date when Unger was summoned and refused. We are of op- 
inion that the indictment is sufficient. 

It is contended that the evidence fails to orove that 
such was the judgment of the sheriff on October 4, when he 
summoned Unger. The proof is that a strike begtui in L.-ke 
County about September 33; that the sheriff and the police 
felt -unable to deal with it and called upon the Governor for 
assistance; that the Adjutant General was sent to the place 
and informed the officers that no hel^ would be furnished till 
the sheriff had exhaused his powers; that on September 36 there 
was a gathering of 3,000 peoi^le, and stones and other missiles 
were thrown and property was destroyed and persona were injured; 
and that the sheriff then determined or formed the judgment that 
a lar^e number of special deputies were necessary, and from time 
on for a week or ten days he sunmoned special deputies in 1 rge 
and h.-d special deputies in service till November S. He did 
mot expressly testify th^-t on October 4, when he summoned Unger, 
he still had the judgment that special deputies were necess^^ry. 
It is, however, apparent from the proof that the same disordered 
conditions existed inihe comm-unity on October 4 as on September 
26 and the verdict of the j\rry is equivu.lent to a finding to that 
effect. V/e think also that the rule st-ted in 10 R. C. L. 872, 


nerft aerio ^■. ............ *' " ■■^'^ eejieLL ^nuoo 

©2L:J ' ' - '--^ •:.•...,.,-.., iv^a-^ .T -'--• C^ f.i.68 od& Jo taesxsl'ist 

.boos •^^'- "^-' -'-■ i'"ioid-..v:i. . s.. ... ^.l:f %eioniIII ^x^auoD 

nsdiai/n .lo ^i^nlfloniinue erl;f Leilxrpai \':f8looe lo aeLio 

ani.i:Mio^ iii^.,o edJlil ©riT ".el^iT:ade t^J^QQ-b I^loaqa xo 

:^^©ra3LJJ■t edi gniecf tsdi &Bdt eTcev.-. baj^ anolJBg'elljs i^Iimle 

Qd& aeliirqsb blsB sd& lo ©no us LsnomDitrn ©xf »l:li:t9xla sdt lo 

: 'r S .Jnt/oo dje ed^ e.i *08l:l9 xeXlnrie oT .aas^U nxfoL Llisa 

. +ioxXai:)l:v i3 isbnu ^9191 ^^ i&cfo*oO Beotcii eVn^'bo s-eedi to 

-c.„) io e" '" .'"'-■■'e'l Lrc-B i^snomnure sisw legflU n&rlw sJ^L ©rid" 

.^tneloillx/s e1 tnem*oJ±<ni edJ- J-idf noinl 

ed ned?, »^ iecfoJ-oO n^- ".^■^erfe srft lo J-noKigLut ^J^* 8i3W dona 
e5f.-J ::: nsgocT eafii^c - .-..icf ei looiq 9£fT .logriU Lsnoiacic/a 

ici noHTovoO srf* noqij iiSlijBo bar' ti dttJi Ijseb ot ©Xcf^am; tlol 

■^ Xq eni- od- drtee a-sw XjBieneO ;}-ni;*x/(;LA 8xl:f :f£ilJ {eonjsd-aisBJS 

x..^c -.arieinu/^ scf t'Xrjo'w ^Xed on t^dt eisoi'tlc - '-^ ■ oraidlrtl Ln£ 

sasild- 3R aecfmerf^qeB no i^sdi (biswO':; eld b&BUndaj -- ■. u iliaeda ed& 

eeXieeim I'.^xf^o £)n£ seno*e biu. taXqosq 000 ^S lo ■Qai.iifd;^j^ a a-w 

i^d:i inQtOQb'j'' --'-^ Lsmno^ 10 Leniiai&iaij aadi lltieds Qd& t^dt Lfl.j 
8111.^+ ■- - I aeoen eisv/ Eai^ji/qsL Xxjioaqe 10 ledmsa ©gi^iX Ja 

'J- X X lij rv^io^'Hcx- Xjjio9q& isiiouiKjje orf cj-'^J^ fi-^ "' " -' — •• 10^ no 

lib ©H .< lecfr '-'^'' "r--+ aoivTee nl soli'x/qr-. ± .. u;.-.;- i. .£[ in.: 

., ..fajnU Jjeno.T"" -- >.x..r-> ,^ ^^^j. y^ija^^ Y-Caeeiqxe tofl 

.''"■ '■-'^'■^"r ... ._^... c..-.. X....-.JO X .. ;ij iaotagbu' :-'■* .,d XXi^a ©d 

^.. \..,x xw.. ^j. aflue ©d* tx.d* ^oax.._ .^li.j ...oil :J-n9aj3q ;,.. ,iu.owod\ei ;tl 

-r^K-. ,-..+ ■ -•■. :-> ' K aedoi'cO - ■ "•♦inArrnmoo 6f& n 1 JbsctElxe anoid-ILnoo 

-■r *neX/-vx. ..c cx yij^*: s-'i^ *" "^^ " i©v ©d* Lob 8S 

, . . '' - : .''■•* *- -'■■': ©dcf ifitd:r Oc. x_ ..uiidt ©W .Josllt© 

applies to thia situation. It is as follows: "When the 
existense of a person, a person^Q relation, or atc^te of 
things is onoe established by proof, the law presumes that 
the person, personal relation, or state of things continues 
to exist ius bofore, until the contrary is shown, or until 
a different presumption is raised from the nature of the 
subject in question." Follitt v. I. C. R. R. Co., 209 111, 
App, 81, in whth case a certior:..ri was denied. Unger's 
co\msel does not question the evidence in any other respect 
nor does he deny but what Unger was summoned to act as de- 
puty sheriff and that he refused. 

Complaint is made of the giving of an insturotion re- 
quested by the People, no unmbered in the abstra 't, but No. 
17 in the record, which is as follows: 

"The court instructs you that the doubt which will 
justify .n acquittal is as to the guilt of the ac- 
cused on the whole of the evidence in the case, and 
not as to any p.Jticiilar fact or circumstance relied 
upon or- sought to be proved. If after considering 
all the evidence in this case, taken and considered 
together, the jury are satisfied of the defendant's 
guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, they shoudl so find 
notwithst:-inding eviry particular link or circumstance 
in the chain of evidence sought to be proved m-.y not 
be established beyond a reasonable doubt." 

It is argued that every instruction which directs a verdict 

should state all the facts necessary to be oroven to authorize 

such verdict. The rule is as claimed, but this instruction was 

not intended to tell the jury what must be proved in order to 

justify a verdict of ;^ilty. The purpose of the instruction 

w:.3 to tell the jury that it v/cs not necessary that every part- 

icudar link or circumstance in the chain of evidence sought to 

be proved must be established behond a reasonable doubt. We 

are of opinion that it w -s not error to give th^t instruction. 

The judgment was the severest which the statBte authorized. 

That fact alone does not authorise xia to interfere and substitute 

our judgment for that of the trial judge. We find no reversible 

error in the record and the judgment is therefore affirmed. 


&sii nedW" :s?.'o." i -I Tie eiri* o* aeilqqii 

5;o Qi^.B&h io ©errsj-aixs 

afcx/ixxd-xio; .:toti£il&i XjBHoaiceq ^noeioq Sild- 

en - .:;tr:-rr edt moil i:'e8i.'iT ei noi:+qcxju-asiq d-naislliL i^ 

.^QS t.o- .r^oiJ-aayp at ;toe(;d0e 

e'lesnU .i>sinc., ixiioli-iso £ eajso ddtiiw ni 4X0 .'iqA 

d-oeqesi '^erlto Y^-e nl eoneL2v6 srlrf' noxJeeup d-on eeolj Xoeni/oo 

-sL -.* Lenontaus ejsw lesnU ii^xiw Jwcf Tjxxsti ©fl eeofc ion 

-aa nclto'Xirj-anl ob ^0 gxiivlg axid" lo sLi^ia ai ^rci^^XqiaoO 

,oM tucf jCf'-^t;tGcfii sdJ ni Lsascfmat; on ,9Xqo©*I Qdt vd ieteejjp 

:8woIXo5: bj3 ai dotdv ^bz.ooQi odt ai V L 

iXiv, doiiivi rf-cfr/T rlj- uoy a;iouiiiiat inuoQ odT" 

-oj:. sdif 10 :M ai X^d-tJCirpo^. n-: T'^^^a;/}; 

bexLoi eoa.c&Bmsz.ilo 10 :to«^i ■i-.:Xircixt*i.;--CT va^. oi a-o tbn 

gniial;ianoc -lod-ljo II ♦ijsvoT:q ©cf o;t td-guoB 10 aoq^ 

bQ'iebieaoo basi neijs^f^saxic aidi tti. soneLivs srfJ- IX..; 

e' +n.'^bn:©'ieL odd- io iiailaij-jse otv? yrtt/f; odi ^iedt'3:^oi 

bc- :'.?. yojcI:^ ^&dlIOb el ..- LrroYQcT «*Ijti:;s 

^:r 10 -fniX X!:^^^/oit:I . i^r.ibns:&Bdii\itoa 

• oiii^j^ivQ lo niaifo erfJ nJt 
.; Lnc'Yatf l>erteildi%d-as ©cf 

.■lioi!i:^ y^"v. Lsi/g^ussi tl 

es-tn- fi/ieee;: .1 adrf' XX^:; sd-^-:*e blisode 

. .itou'il-. Bi eXtrtc adT tioibi^v doue 

07 Qfft IXa* 0* IsaLnad-nx *on 

noi+oifTj-pr noquurq . .:; tcxLisv : Y^i^airf; 

"Sfi ton . .J- Y^'^'"!; -■^i'j' XXaJ" ot t. w 

xlj- al Boa^ismjoilo '^o JinxX xsXuoi 

haodz-'f ijtjdci £<^,"*rs ecf cfax/ai Lovoiq acf 

,aoi:'\ : aoialqo lo ai^ 

;:*::- ?j-s-^ t :^^teir;7:^LI;t ©dT 

i.tiodSi: Z£ to^i J^dT 

eXdiaiev'ri on ;:rii. , .1 iit eu: . ta&iagLjJi; ix;o 

. ■•'!-^' -edj ex d-xxsagijirt 2^* ''•'^' I^-iooe'x eri-t xii TOTie 


SECOND DISTRICT. | ^^- I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof. 

do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in 

the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of 
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty. 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 


b *^o 


Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifm day of October, 

in the year of our Lord one thousand ninef hundred and 

•twenty, within and for the Second Distj^ct of the State of 
111 ino is 

Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pr^iding- Jus t i ce 

Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, j/stice 


Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, .j/stice. 

ARTHUR E. SNOW, Cle] _, 

CURT S. AYERS, She:^ff. ^ 1. •/ i-»^"»-» O O O 


BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on October 
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the 
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following-, to-wit: 

Gen. No. 6796 

D&.i33' Petro, Adminiatrs-trix, etc., 
Defend£-nt in error, 
va Error to Kankakee . 

Walker D. Hinee , Director General, 
etc. Plaintiff in error 

219I.A. 635 

Dibel-, P. J. 

John Petro was struck and killed by the engine 
of a passenger train on the Chicago & eastern Illinois Railroad while 
going: over said railroad at a farm crossing on April 1, 1918. He 
left next of kin for whose benefit this suit was brought by the Ad- 
ministrator against the Director General of Railroads operv.ting 
said Chicago & Eastern lalinois Railroad, and against a Receiver of 
said Railroad Company. Afterwards and before the return day, plain- 
tiff dismissed the suit as to the Receiver. Plaintiff filed a de- 
claration in two counts. The first count set up the statyite requir- 
ing head lights upon passenger locomotives between 8unia';TO on s?-id 
lay and that defendant failed to maintain any light on the he?.d of 
said locomotive, anl by re son thereof Petro was prevented from 
seeing the engine ani train approaching and was killed by reuaon 
thereof. The second count charged that defendant so negligently oper*- 
ated said locomo+ive and train that by reason thereof Petro was struck 
and killed. Defendant pleeded the general issue, and there was a jury 
trial and a verdict for plaintiff for ^v:io,000. A motion by defendant 
for a new trial was deniel and plaintiff hai judgment on the second 
verdict. This is a write of error to review said record. 

The general course of sail railroad is north and south. Be- 
t'.Teen Grant Park on the north and Momence on the south in K?.nkakee 
County, Petro occupied what was known as the Graham farm, anl the 
Railroad crossed it some where ne:.r the center. Petro has occupied 
the farm as a tenant a littel over a year. The land east of the 

8676 .oVL .naO 

,10113 nt •fn^:;i:n9i9a 
. 8S3[js3lnB>: od- loii" ev 

^I.-isnaO loJ-oaiiQ , asniH .Q isilsW 
Goo /' loiis ax ^lxtni.i-I<i .eta 

■*^ JL, ^. 

eliffw fc^.oiIiJsH sionxIII ni9*ai?9 & og^oiifD srf^f rro nxisi^ xsgnsaa-sq £ "io 

8H .9iei il IxiqA no gniaaoiomi^l £ &£ I.GOiIijoi f)i£8 i9vo gniog 

-fcA snt ^cf .txf^^oicT asw til/a aixfd- i-xlsnscf saodw lol nisf "io cfxsn (f'isi 

3fii*.-:;i©qo sfc£OiXjtJsH lo XjsisneC lod'osild 9if* tBatJs^a lod-aii-aiaioi 

^■o T9vi909?T ^ tenxB^fi fcrrjG ,£:3oiIx^H axoniXj-I ni9ts£3 jS ogjsoirfO fci^e 

-nielq ,x.sfc atsj&si Qdt siolga' true aiJi^wisi^lA .ifn,sqtioO bsoiii^ tijse 

-ef: js bQif^ "iJltalsl^ .isvisosH 9x1* ot as d-xxfs sdd- tsesimeifc HI* 

-ixifpsi otqtste edi qu tee tnwoo taiJtl eriT .stnxroo owcf al noi^JtiiisIo 

bi^~e no nvnjjbm/a nsswtecf esvl+omoool isgnasa^q ncqu atdgiX X\s8rf gal 

^o t-9rf SiIc^ no id-glL xn.B al^&aiBm o* LoIIf.I: farJjas'i^b i^idi Las xsL 

moil i>9*iiav9ic --re^ 10919:1* noe. 9i x^ ^^^ »9vXtorf!OooI tiaa 

fl0BJ69i X'^ b&lLi rc£ -g^ld nxjsi* trf£ gni^ne srf* gni99£ 

■^leqo \£:fn.e'!^iL'§9n 08 i-ii^fis-xslj d-jsd* Iss'x^iic txLuoo txioosa 9xlT ."ioeigri* 

iOl/ltg 3J3V; 01*Sl 10919X1* 008391 -^ xii^i* fcn^ 9VX-*-0ffi000l Xli^a JbQ*£ 

>ti0(; p 8SW 9i9rf* bas t9Xf88i X^isa^^ t.ii bebaelq tasbaelieQ .i.eXXia[ bas 

taataQ^eb ^cf noi^" .000»0X| lo^ "ilitni^Iq lo'i *oxti5v o fcnij Xxsii* 

fcnooaa 9x1* xro taQi:r£,liJ [. " -:w Xjsii* wsn ^ lol 

,210091 fjXjSB waxvsi 0* "xoiia io sjxi..- ... si: ejtxlT .*oxXi9v 

-&"': .'Tiroc. l.a.r fl*iort si £xc' '' 10 981X/00 XBigngg sxlT 

39:i£^a.^.1 at d&uos 9x1* xio :..aci!i:oM rxrjs ri*ioxi 9x1* no .^lij^I *njGiC n99w* 

9x^* .IrnjQ ,mi£x mrxljsi'' .rw taxqxxooo oi*9? ,y*^"^oO 

fcgiqjjooo aexl 01*9"? .isracc ■ cisii".' amoa *i tgaaoio b^oiXi^ff 

9rl* '^0 *8B9 ba.ei ed? .i^ex s tsvo X9**xX £ *n^n9* js sjs mi^l 9x1* 

tracks wus level c.nd without timber, as shown hy the photographs 
in evidence. On the western part of the farm was a hill and on it 
many trees near the railroad. The farm buildings w^re in that 
grove. The railroad skirted along the eastern foot of the hill and 
in so doing described a curve. Between the farm buildings and the 
eastern part of the farn was a farm crossing by which the farmer could 
cross said railroad, with gates in the right of way fence on each side 
of the railroad. If one stood on the crossing and looked north or 
south the curve was to thevest. Access from the farm building to the 
publice highway was over said farm crossing ani wast across the east- 
ern part of said farm. Petro had been working upon that part of the 
farm east of the railroad and was returning home. At this point the 
railroad has three tracks. The west track -ms the south bound track 
on which the train was going south which struck Petro. He was very 
deaf but could hear a locomotive whistle on a passing train. He was 
struck about 7:35 P.M., which was about ten minutes after sundown. 
The clear preponderance of the evidence was that the headlight on the 
engine was not burning. The evidence introduced by defendant on 
that subject, when read in full in the record, is not satisfactory. 
It seems probcible that as Momence, less thaA a mile and a half further 
on, was the end of the run for that train and was to be reached very 
shortly after sundown, the engineer either forgot or thought it not 
necessary to turn on the headlight. The jury were well warranted in 
finding that it was not burnging, and that the charge of negligence 
made in the first count of the declaration was sustained. Petro had 
a right to rely upon defendant to obey that statue. We collected the 
authorities to that effect in Follett v. I. I. R. R. Co., 300 111. 
App. 389, as applied to ordin^i-ces. The rule as to statutes is the 
same. Whether the absence of the headlight caused Petro' a death was 
a question for the jury. Under the second count plaintiff claims that 
becr-use of the hill west of the tracks and the grove thereon, and the 
position of the railroad curning to the east and then to the west at 


erfqx— caocforfq erfo y;d nworfa :; 

tl no i.n.c; ilzn ^ s..vv ■■nir'' eJ 

srit tn£ B-gattitsjd mi£'i 9d& :■■ 
bluoo 18.^^4^ 9M xfoirfw v6 gn 
etts does ao seas'. 

sriS- ot "aatbliiud i> 

■1.^0 nij' .... i 

atai^fs i:\60illj3i srlT .evcxg 

g ritiw ttaotlx^i: tijse aaoio 
.*u;o ad 3^ dtuoe 

^tess ;. i.-f 010 rf^i.;:^ iijse 19V'. ,i?frfg,iri scildi/q 

srft "o .->••:-:.: .tjsri* iioqir gni^iow ased bsd oio-e*? .rcrijel ijijsa lo *iJ3q ni8 

erf:^ vtnloq aldt 1A . ef?icii ;;nxnix/tsi e.; • ^o miBl 

ioi5i;t bituod d&uc : osri tesw erfT .a:io£ii Bsirfd- a-eM txsoiXiai 

Y19V Qsm aH .oits^ iouite rfolrfw diuos gnxog s^w nJEsiJ srf* rfolrfw no 

e^w ©H .xil^i* gnxesaq £ no siteirfw svl^t-ornoool .lijoo iud ^jsefc 

.nwoJbnjJB led'ljs B»;tx;nxm net taods b^w rfoiriv , 'o:V :tjjoc!j; ioutte 

srfc -w sonstivs ©xft ^o aoxfsietxtoqsiq tcjssIo »rfT 

no -tn-ebnslst ^cf i)30i;Ldi;tnx sonafcxve srfT .gnintircf ton a.sw snxgns 

.y:'to&o£lati.Bs ton ei ,tiooei sAf al Hist at b&sT. abxiw ^tosj^due ^jsrlt 


X'isv t'sriojsei 
ton ti :frf7a0oriJ 

bed oits<^ 
exf* £>e*o8lIoo 

*Brij- etnlfilo ^'^ittniaslq ^nr 


. nsmoM sj: J^rl;)- eXd^cfo^iq emssB tl 

.1 ^o tins 3ffJ Bjsw iiio 

:.3fia£'§ae sdt «mfotm/a isifl^s xlfioda 

. txf 3 lib jsaxf arfi- no niu* o^ -ifussesoen 

. :iit-gaiad ton bjsw" ti tsri* gnibnl!: 

Lost &dt lo :?-nuoo ieil'i srit nl atjsm 

tn^inelBt aoqu xlti ol^'trfgl^-^ 

: to9^"5-9 tjsrit oi asttltodtu^ 

tatiqqji e£ ,e8S .qqA 

:. sonsacfjs erf* i9ff:f6ffW '.©busb 

■:dt letnU -t^i/t ^^-^ ^o^ aol&Bsup £ 

o^io^sit srft "5^0 *89W iLid. 9rft lo sBis^oed 

■?t gninii/o Jbijoilxsi grit ^o noitiBoq 


the immediate foot of said hill, and because of the shadow and 
fog and the atmoBpheric conditions then prevailing, defendant has 
a common law duty to give notice by whistle or ball or other'.viae 
of the approach of the train to this farm crossin?^, and that de- 
fendant gave no such notice, anJ that the death of ^etro was due 
to the failure to give such notice. The rule of law relied upon 
under the second count is thus 8t:.ted in C. E. A» Q. R. R. Co. v. 
Perkins, 135 111. 137i 

"A railroad compr-ny, in the running of its trains, is required 
to use ordinary care and prudence to guard against injury to 
the person or property of those who may be travelino- upon pub- 
, lie highways and are required to cross its tracks, whether re- 
quired by statute or not. The fact that the statute may pro- 
vide one precaution, does not relieve the company from adopting 
such others as public safety and com.non prudence may di state. 
Shober v. St. Paul, Minneapolis and Minnesota Railway Co., 
28 Minn. 1C7." 
This rule has been acplied to the speed of trains in populous places 
in Chic, go & N. ■??. Ry. Co. v. Dunleavy, 129 Hi. 132; R. J. & E. R|i. 
Co. V. Raymond, 148 111. 241; Pcrtlow v. I. C. R. R. Co., 150 111. 33^; 
and Overtoora v. C. & E. I. R. R. Co., 131 111. 323. In the Dunleavy 
case, supre, the court said: "Railroad companies, where there is no 
exprer.s statute of oriinance, are bound by the rules of the common law 
to exercise their franchises with a due regard to the interests, the 
welfare, and the safety of the public." Plaintiff introduced proof 
that there had been a hard rain that day; that at the time of the 
accident there was darkness at that place, caused fcy in part by the 
shaie of the trees at that crossing; that the sky was da'-k; that it 
was foggy St thit time and the fog was rising; and that i-f one was 
crossing the railroad track there going nest, the vi w to the north 
would be shaded. Defendant introduced proof that it was not foggy; 
that it was a clear day; that there was no darkness; that the trees 


tns wot£ria 9dt lo eai/j^oscf i o tool a^.^lLsiMii eri* 

Bjerf tn£-ta9lst ,gaiXi£V9aq asxi:'- i-sriqeoK^is atii' La£ gol 

9aivri9xl.'''o 10 i-ieci 10 sii-airfw :n svig ot x*^t> WisI nommbo b 

-9Jb iBdt tns ,ani aaoio mxi?^ e -rioTd- srf:f lo rio^OTqqjS sAt I0 

sut B£'n Gits'? to Ataeb srin- ^soiifon rioue on evjcg ifnijfcnsl 

noqxj tailsT w£l *o slui srlT .eoid-on doue ©vig a# STuIijs'i srfrf' ot 
.V .00 .H .H .p *A .a .0 ai i)9*jjte sjjrft ei 3-ni/oo fcnoosa srit rstau 

j7SX .ill aei ,8nxa[X8«T 

bsrtupQ'z at ,aal£Tt 8*2 lo ■^nlaaui srfdr ni ,Yn.iqfnoo fcjsoilljstt A" 

oJ- YTjj cni itBfli^^^.: Iijsug oi QoaeLuia ta£ STiso Y'^JsnifrTo eau o^ 

-cfuq rtoqx/ sxiilsvjstd' ec^ ^sm oriw seori* ^o v.^isqoiq to noaieq exit 

-9T ledfsdv ,E3fceT:t atx saoio ot ter^pot 9Tjs bns exBud-^id oil , 

~oiq \£(B 9tu.+£ta srft .-* :il+ to'?! 9rfT .v+on 10 e&utsta yd fcoilxip 

gnitqof.M3 .xot^ icn^qfwoo srit aveilsi ton asot ,noit0j3O9iq srro eiiv 

.8tJ3teifc Y-''^ QoasLsjjq noa rreoo ijnas y*9^-S8 oxlduq 3£ aiedto doiSB 

,.oO Y^wll£fl atoaannlM fca^ ailoqssnniiM ,Ii;£? . f^ .v tacforfS 

•.701 .nnlM 8S 

aeoiilq ajjoluqoq ni anl-sit lo boeoB srit ot tslXqqjs nasd BjsrI slin alffT 

• HfH .3 2> .L .H ;££! .Ill SSI ,yys:eLaiJ(J .v .oO -yH .W If =8 og-oiriO nl 

;|Sc .1X1 oax ,.qO .fT .F ."; .1 .v woltiisg jX^S .1X1 8^X .tnom^^zH .v .oD 

YV£eXra/C edt nl .££;£ .111 X81 ^.oO .H .H .1 .3 A .0 .v mootf-isvO baji 

on fi 3i&rit 9ie£fw ,B9in£qii;oo fc^oiXijsfT' rJbl^e tiwoo srft ,9igjua »ea£0 

wjsX nornaoo erft '10 bsXjji edt yd Jbm/oo'' St^ ,9ond?ni:iTO ^o gtx/tijta ansTqxe 

srft ^atesTstni edt ot ti^gei 90b 5 rftlw aealrfon^sil; tlsrft saXoigx© o* 

"iooiq fcecutcrtni ^IxtnisX'? ".oXXcfwq sri* !to Yt9!t£8 sift Jbn^ teijelXsw 

9iit to emit arit ts fsdt jyjbI) tari* nijst brsd a ngacf fcjsri 8'X9ilt t£rf* 

erit Y':f ta^q ai ^dl■ b^eu£o ,8osXq t^rf- niT^ bbw 9i9rft tnsLXooB 

ti t£cft jii/jt 8jqw y^ nieeoto t^rft tjs aeeaj 9dt lo at'jBrfa 

saw eco -1 tjsxft ins <'r?ni 9£ft bas emit ttrft ife ybS^^ s-gw 

rition sdt ot wiv exit ,te9« jjntc ^OTXiJsa erf* gnlaaoTO 

{YSpo"^ *cn exrw tl t^^rit lootq l^ec: :tn£l)a9l9a .Jbsij^rfa ed bXuow 

aeeit erlt t£rft {a29n:fi-^L on a^w sTsrit tiirit {X^ 'i-sLo js 8x3W ti tvSXlt 

cast some shadow over the track at that place but not much; bu*- one 
of its witnesses testified that it wy.s cloudy or hazy. Defendant 
introduced five photographe, taken by its photogreipher on June 13, 
1913. Photograph No. 3 shows the sitUL\tion as it was to Petro as 
he approached the tr§,ck at the time he was killed, egcept th.t the 
photograph was taken in broad day light. Defendant also . introduced 
photographs numbered 6, 7, 8, and 9, taken on September 11, 1919. 
It was proved that No. 8, taken in September, 1919, was not a correct 
representation of the cajossing looking north at the time of the 
accident, because hedge and brush inside the farm fence which shaded 
the track and the view of d>ne looking north had all been out away 
between the time of the taking of the two sets of pictiires, by a later 
tenant on the farm. The engineer testified for defendant that he 
blew the whistle as he approached the farm crossing. This tended to 
show that defendant recognized this f'^ivrr. crossing as a place where it 
was its duty to give warning under the cor;.n:on law rule above stated. 
Whether this was such a place and the surroxindings such that such 
signals should be given especially on a cloudy, foggy day it the edge 
of the evening, was a question of fact for the jury, le must assume 
the jury found that such a case was made and we cannot say they should 
have found otherwise. The proof by the trainmen was that the whistle 
was blown as the train anproached the fam crossing and that an auto- 
matic bell was ringing. Witnesses for plaintiff, situated where they 
were accustomed to hear the trains, testified tha^ they did not hear 
any such signals. This presented a question of facto for the jury. 
After two juries hive found agr.inst defendant ani the tri'.l judge 
has approved their finding, we cannot say that their verdict is not 
supported by the evidence or that another jury would find differently 
on this subject. There may have been that in the manner of the train- 
man when testifying which justified the jury in their conclusion. 

Plaintiff proved by several witnesses tha* Petro was a man of 


ano 'xjcf ;:^'-f' ■ '-^ srfcf isvo woi/jsrfe ©moa d"aso 

ia^bnelc ^ '-'iirmr lailld-as;! aeeeenJ-iw ei-trlo 

.SI sm/L ^£xiq£igo*oriq evil bBouboifai 

ej3 oi*s- -- — -„_:—.-., :>-''^ ?jO!la £ .all rfq£'xgoi-0£l'i .8161 

srf+ ■* i'+ itrT?,c„ ,^.IIiy - --w <-.rf 9jji_j -^ 3fo>3^* sffj- fesrio-soaqqe ari 

fcsoxxtoi^frt^.oaXE iJ-njsfcxis'^t- ..-.^.il '"^i" ' -ot"' rrt nai^d- asv dqsi'gotod.q 

.eiex tll tCDrfEe.tqaS iro aa^st ,6 I.. ,- . .3 bstedaiua erfqjBTSOiforfq 

■*- — TOO B toa asrr ,8XGX .Tsdrrts tqaB nx n93l£;t ,8 .oTI ;t£ff* tevo%({ sjbw d"! 

exf* "lo ami* e.-f* Jjb rfi-iorr ---rfv.-^ol grtleaotso adS to aol&^&nseazqBi 

fcsfcBris rfoirir eons^ imijsl arfS- c - .eurd tn£ agJberl sauj^oetf ^tnefcloois 

^j8W£ ^ifo nascf Lis tsd d&roa sniiool srrA to waiv srfd- Jbn^ aloiia* 9d& 

tstpI >6 vo' ,a©TJJtolq ^o a^ee ov& edt "io -^aijist edt to smld- arTj- naewj'ecf 

eri tBif* Jn^ns':©!; toI fcsJt^ltaa* tsanigna axlT .mi-c^t arf* oo. tnjena* 

ot ^,9t^^* aiilT .^nieaorro ^^-^ ^- ^r't ftaxlo^oiqg^ arf as altalrfw ©rid- wald 

ti siarfw aoBlq £ ss gnisec _ r.-ft foasifl^oost friJsJbna^ai) tarft worfe 

,b9is.iB -A-o-"i ''f ^^jsi nc ..:+ latni; gninTjsw svlg od yd-ub edi asw 

rfcii-: . ,. .. --trmoiTi/a srfo Lrrjs ao^^Iq £ rfbtra enw airit TarfJarfW 

a^fcs arf* ,t* v--;f; '7T^o'i ,y^^<^'"" "" ^■^"' ^'.Iljsloaqes nsvi^ ad fcluorie Bijsnsle 

9mug?.£ J£xji^: - • v^i^t ^rf'^' "-- -0 noxtsejjp js a£w ,gnin9ve erit ^o 

tLifoie vBn* V r-r. fri'ifi.-n a-5,^ fifl^ sfc^Bf 85ty aajso fi rfoue cf^ricf tnuol yti/c an* 
eXtei ..;.mni3T:i- f^-."rf- vrf T-ooiq eifT .aal7;-rt>rf*o bm/ol evBrI 

-o"*^'' ~r^^(^-f .. .^oiqc'jB nljBid- Slid- bb «woXd BvBw 

rsasntJtW .gni^nii ajsw lied" old-jsm 

Tl^TTtf' eri+ iBaif o? bemotax;ooj3 sisw 

aj-fiaaeiq aixfT ,elJfiS£a riotra y^-s 

- -. .^jffifcrtil liarf* bavoiqqa -aari 

j-jcrf* 10 aonafciva arfcf ^d JbaJTEoqque 

isad av.trl Y'SW stcsriT ..toscdi/e elrfj- no 

. . ^i vfu- a;:,^ talliteiff; rfcxrfw 77n2Y^-t!*'88d' narfw tmm 

'Ic u . alavae -'d tavotq tlt&alsll 


.v'rxj;, - 

3'p.:- ^■ - 



-aisif srf:' '■o 


careful habits with respect to care and caution for his own safety. 
The abstraft does not fujly set out what the reoorl shows ooourred 
when the question was first put. Defendant's counsel objected that 
this evidence was not competent unless it was shown that there were 
eye witnesses. Plaintiff's aounsel then stated that there were no 
eye witnesses, and a^o that if he could raise a subntantial ioubt 
that there was an eye witness, the testimony was competant . rhen 
plaintiff's counsel stated that there was no eye witness, defendant's 
counsel did not assert that there was any eye witness Of course, it 
could not be aff irn^atively shown that there was no eye witness in 
any oase. At the time this objection was made there had been nothing 
tending to show that there was an eye witness. The place was in the 
country where few persons would be likely to be, A. similar situation 
was presented in C. & A. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 128 111. App, 38. ^peak- 
in on this subject we there said: 

"Plaintiff's proofs iid not disclose that any one saw the accident. 
When testimony of this character was first o'f'fered de-^endant ob- 
jected on the ground tha+ such evidence was only competen-^ where 
nobody witnessed the accident. The attorney who made that ob- 
jection was then ■-.isked if he claimed there wasn an eye-witnesa to 
this accident, and he made no reply. This is onitted from the 
abstract. It was after that silence that the court ad'nitted the 
testimony. There was certainly no error in its admission under 
those circumstances.* 

In the Appellate Court of the First District in Standard Brewing Co. v. 
Erie R. R. Co., 167 111. App. 303. plaintiff offered testimony of the 
habits of deceased and its ccu.sel stated to the court that he thought 
there was no ey witness to the accident, and counsel for defendant did 
not deny this, and the court admitted the testimony ani this was treated 
as correct. We conclude that as defendant's here id not assert that 
there was any ey witness the court properly permitted the question to 
be answered. When the same inquiry was T:aie of other witnesses for plain 
tiff, the objection was only that iw was not conspetent, anl xinder three 
circumstances the court Aid not err in permitting the questions to be 
answered. Defendant claims that thereafter it introduced the evidence 
of two ejie witnesses, viz. the engineer and the fireman on the traino 

.Y'ta-we nv.o ql.: toI- tot 050-331 rf*iw aticf^rf laleijso 

tdiTuooo arorle ,. ~- >'f aaoi) flMzted^ «i1 

f&di taJoa^do lesfuro-. s f rrnj.-^Ins'^sa , ... ;." nox:ta»up srli- carfw 

STS'w sisrij- d" .•..■■ rrv. isitaqmoo *on eijw soneJbivs aM:f 

on 9T^w SIS. ~ ..:.:'.njoo a *l"ili'Xil£l*? . aaaasn^txw 8^8 

:fcfjjoi- Liita^ . .. ... xisi blvoo -. ^:ft oaX,e tn.- «s9e89ni-i:w oy© 

B'tasbne'ieb ,a8efl*lw ex9 oa e^w stsi: teJ^ts leaxu/oo a '"itidrii^Iq 

•ti .eeti/oo 10 aeerrd-iw s^js x^^ e-sw 9a«ri* *,sri* d-isae^ ;ton tJti: IsaniJoo 

nx sssntiw s^js on ex-u disfft ^.£ri* nwoxfa Y't9viif£'r;'iil!tA3 ed j-on fcXxroo 

§nxriton nsacf fc^rf e^srf* 6l"j£fl! a^vr noilosQcfo airi;}- arai^ exitf *A .98^0 ^nx^ 

en'J- iix 3X5?.' 90J?Iq srfT .assnitiw s^© njs exsw siarirf- ^3ric^ worie ot gxiiins^ 

noi^tsuitie tBliiaxe ,A ^scf ot yXajfil 8c Lluow enoatrsq wsl aiariw ^•r;t'iiuoo 

-i.i-.fiCT^ .88 .coA .III SFI ,noRliW .v .oO .yH .A sS .0 nx ie^neesTq a^w 

:i)ijBe aiQtii- 97; d-oeQo'x/e eiriif no 'nx 

.d-nellocB Sii+ w-r.-; eno v-^:.: aoloexfc ton fcil; alooiq e "Hii-nifc.:"'" 

-do tn^tns" si fceTslro ^stxI 8j3W le-^os-XEto sM& "io vnomxteecf 

STOrive tnsd-eqmoo ^J^^^o ajsw eonsLlv© rfoxra ■t.erij- fm/otg ©ri* no i)e; 

-do ,-^£ri+ 9fc£fi- orfw vQttioi:^.^: sriT .tneirioo-G an* fcaerisa^xv? vfcodon 

ot Bsend-lw-e^s n£ no^w aisric Lemlslo srl li fcsifgj.- a9:i& SJ.iV noxjoej; 

erft .T'oi'i bsttiao ei sidT .YiQ'^'"^ on elsm sri Ln£ ,:)-n9bjtoofi airi:.' 

9rf;f ijst + larfcjs Jti/oo erf* ^oarf* sonelxa tjsxfif Tje^tli- b£w tl .toBt&eds 

rratnu noieai-ntxs sti nl noTtis on ifliiijsitieo esw siarfT .y^aotrdiaet 

^ .BaDn^inriJCitlrj eeorfd- 

.V .00 ^nir/sig tiebnj^tB nl tott;tatQ. tsiil sri* ^0 iJixfoo et^XiaqqA edj- nl 

axft ^0 YfiOOiJBSS- tm9l'!-o l^.ii.. . 20S .qqA .III 781 «.oO .H .H 9li3 

jfrfgwotft erf tsiit tzu':. 'f bQfs&B Isenxroo a^jt tn^ teajeeoat aO B*ld£rf 

tit ■^[i£br ^taQblQC£i sd& ot assnJlw ^8 on 8£W srreri;J" 

&a+89Tt B^rrt atdt tas ^no: s&tltabB tiuoo sricf tns ^Btd& ^fnafc ton 

- ; ,^ ' 

+i-rft *T9eeB rf-on bt staxf a * tnabaslai: as J^J5rfd■ atx/Ionoo ©W .Josmoo a^s 

o* noxrf'aejjp adt bat&lmTSQ^ xlieqoiq tiuoo 9d& ansnj-Iw \9 \nB a£w sredt 

atzl-^ ■^0'^ r- iwpni acijea 9dt narfW .tsiawan^ ad 

asidt isbasj i: :. +x}xld' \:Ino bbw aolJoa^do 9d;f ,mi:t- 

ed ot jnc.^r;9ijp ?.:t gniti-itmce 3 ton bll tzuoo edt asoa^tacauoito 

aoneJbiva exf* Jbaox/fcoaJni ti ^cst^soasiL* tsdt waijeXo ^njstne^aQ .£iaT9wan.o 

• nlfiT* erft no n-emeiii sxk' nxgns arf* .siv ,3sa89n*Jtw a^e owj- lo 

The engineer was not an eye witneea. He »aw the body of Petrc roll 
off the track to the west, but he dil not see him as he ai-^proached 
and went upon the railroad track and knew nothing of the conduct of 
deceased before he was struck. The firnman testified that he first 
saw Petro at the east gate; that he was then either closing it or 
had just closed it; that he started walking in a nor^.a! way across to h 
his home till the witness got within 175 feet of himj that Petro then 
looked up on the direction of the train and ran west across the 
track. Plaintiff contends that this evidence in not true. The court 
at the instance of defendant gave sever--. 1 instructions on this sub- 
ject, which wouli have required the jury to find for the defendant if 
tbey believed the testimony of the fireman. There are several things 
relied upon by plaintiff a? justifying the jury in disbelieving the 
fireman. The fireman testified th?.t when he first saw Petro he was 
betv7een 1,000 and 1,300 feet away. It vras proved in rebuttal that at 
the coroner ^s inquest the fireras^n testified that he saw Petro about 
300 feet ahead. The engineer was keeping a lookout ahead and he did 
not see Petro at all. It iw argued that as he approached the crossing 
and the track carved to the east around the hill, he could and should 
have seen Petxo ajad his action if he was running towaris the train. 
It was also a matter u on which counsel for plaintiff rr.ight re^.sonably 
argue to the jury that the fireman was a servant o"^ defendant sni 
might desire to favor the defendant and might desire to screen himself 
from censure and that he was one of the men operating the instrumental- 
ity which caused the death of Petro. There may have beer tha+ in the 
fireman's demeanor on the witness stand which tended to discredit" him. 
After two juries have disbelieved him and the trial judge has approved 
that conclusion, we feel that we ought not to say that the jury should 
have believed him. At the closed of all the evidence de'^endent T.oved 
to exolurle plaintiff's evidence as to the careful habits of the dec- 
eased an i this motion was denied. The question thus presented is 
whether, where plaintiff does not show an eye witness but defendant 

Jb9rfO£OTg'^5 5 

^0 toutaoo sr. 



^exlx.*a3d" ii-sinfiij: 

■ tiyna sxlT 

■ ^-ib 

Jnsw Jbrijs 

aXiiil.. ii* i-x tsaolo' fex/j; fcsif 

rioi*o9ixt s.::i .zo qu bsiool 

.iCiol^fo^ " ' : "5:0 ooastaat Qdf'&£ 

tl i-a-.Liial3i s.-;* To"^ i-££X^: ■ Lo^Xiipi-: ' Cuow rf ofx^w' ", *03 '(; 

s~-'TJ:r^+ Ijstevea 9T£ BTsrfT .n^:^iaii aifj ^o Y^ofnxrricj- sxld" bevell'9(f\9dS 

sd* gniV3il9c/8ii) nl ^nut edt ^nlY*i*8i/(; g; 'i'txtrixjlq ^d" noqx/ Jba'lXatc 

ajsw 9xf oi:f9*T w,sa *aiil dd n»ilw -111*89* asmeii'x arfT' .ntemstll 

+;;■.. .'? ei\ie Oil .^ .-i-iiiiSixz 2ilJ JasjJi^ixi: a''i3ijoioo 3rf* 

TSsai^aQ t '" ." --rfj; .+99l 00£ 
i/gifi wi tl , T*sT 9S8 +on 

a 3x1* a-j: Lovioo :io^Xu axf* f:n^ 
-,i :gxixr., rn.i? oxtfa*! naaa 8VJ3ri 

:-w osmeai^ eri* *^£f* ^tx/t 9^* o* ax/gT£ 
1- ifcns^eti 3d& icvjsl pt ^liaali d'dai® 

-I ' ::: .^o i;s.^ rf* tjxi3 Qiueaoo uioi^ 

*-io£, ari* ioBiJjao rfolrfw Y*-t 
i:)iv/ 8ri* ao lon^amat a'n^rasTl^ 
evexIsdsiJb 8Vj^:f 8Sl:ti;{; ovt ^TipJlA 
*/sx[* Xoet aw .noisx/Ionoo tsiii 
- saolo arf* JA .miil Jbeyallacf QV£xf 
^. eonsJbivs . f' ■ ' '.::9 o* 

^ax/p c . ' -nalj esv/ rj.oicrof: £i4i'* j ri,i; ceaj^s 

s wone oa seofc lli^nl^Xq sterirr ,ieiltsriw 


tlxiorfe i-.i 

.n;lil 'i;i;:- 


iJl X/Orfs \:'.: 

tcvoT :^^ 

presents an eye witne^a concerning v/hose testimony there was a 
question whe + her or not it vtc.s true, anl which the ^ury rrip;ht 
re sonbly iiebelieve, dil that evidence by de-pendant require the 
exclusion of the previous evidence of the careful hsbits of deceas- 
ed. In C. P. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Clo,rk, 108 111. 113, it was held that 
evidence of the care, _prud9nce and sobriety of the dece-^sei was com 
petentent if there was no eye witness and w s not adniseible if there 
were eye witnesses. This has been following in many cases. In I. C* 
R. R. Co. V. Ashline, 171 111. 313, equ3.1if ication of this rule was 
made to the effect that if the evidence le- ves the question in doubt 
?/hether any person saw the dece-^sed when he was struck by the train 
the evidence of careful habits is admissible. This question seerae 
not to hatoe been again presented to the supreme court. There are 
several cases, however, where evidence of earful habits was held 
competent, though decs' sed was seen almost immediatedly before he was 
killed and in the very place where he was killed. In. I. C. R. R. Co. 
V. Nowicki, 148 111. 39, deceased -.'as standing on one tr-ick of a 
double track railroad, waitinr^ for a freight train to. pass on the other 
track and was seen standing therein a place of danger very shortly 
before he was killed. There, as here, a train came around a curve 
at a high rate of sy^eed and struck and killed him and the enginner saw 
his body roll off the pilot of the engine. Profif t^iat deceased was 
sober, industrious and possessed of all his focul-'-ie'? was held com- 
petent. In C. & A. Ry. Co. v. Wilson 335 111. 50, the deceased was 
seen by the engineer almost immediatedly before she was ptruck, but 
it was held that notwithsta-nding that fact, the evidence of her 
c^refxil habits w s competent. The evidence of careful habits having 
been properly admitted here in the first instance, the court could 
not have granted the motion to exclude that evidence, maie at the 
close of all the evidence, without passing upon the crelitibility 
of the fireman. As the question was then presented it was a question 
of fact which the court was required to leave to the jury. We con- 
clude that there was such a situation presented as to the creditibili 

of the fireman so that the verdict of two juries on that subject may 



— 6 ." sr r 

C "T C *• 

tdixot ni rroit 

ton t© tari.laxlw noi^aejjp 
, ^vaiXsdait ylctooa 81 

, - . .0 nl .Jbe 

tionetuTq tSijeo axf;f lo soneiivs 

- ns- sgentc--' ay© on 9.«w sisxid- Ix J-asdrcstaq 

- .ssassn^xw 9\s eiev 

.t.s'>i^iI.Rup9 ,£!£ .Ill L'sl .enxIifeA .v .oO .fl .H 

9ri ner csJb erf+ noetsq ifn^ asriJsriw 

aj-i? .- ^ •- - .aaimf).? ei a*x sonsfclve srf* 

ST ; s'^^T'Twe e' dnsasiq ni-sg^ ussd 9tf£xl o* *on 

'i ftcf^d tve s^exlw ^aavewori «89»*«) XjB^evee 

^se a£W fcsa -9oeb -'^^i/oritf- ^JiisAeqmoo 
■ sojsI'- -.i: Las bQlLti 

■ ^rro rro tixv- sooi ,es .III S*'! tiifoiwoH . 

TSrffO 9rft . -. ol Tifli OlXlfil iOjElJ QlOUOfc 

Yltrro'fs ytsv Te"f>rrp: . rriere-'t nn-trrs+s nssa a^w bnjs 3i0JSi* 

wjse Terrrr ;- 'i teLIi-i, la^ J^oi'ife tan Ledcra lo 9*£i dgiri js.^£ 

. rrr-pffs ' roXlq adt t^.o XIoi Y;fcod alri 

. i)9Q««seoq fcnjo aijoxite0tnx ,T9aoa 

T08I1W . . .yH -A ii .0 nl .d-neteq 

irjsnigne 9di" ,y^ neaa 

■^t.-ton fBdt tX^ri sjsw ;tx 

Sonet i' raJarrinc.'. xd^f Xu^ei^o 

xi grrexf Jbatd-iraL^s ^Xaaqoaq noecf 

'-'''■' ::9 0* xtolcfom 9x1* fceJnjsag 9v^if ioa 

uodityn ^eoxisLivs sxl* IX£ to eeoXo 
ncj't; -J-aajjp sffJ 3/1 .n.siB9TJt^ 9xl;f lo 

fcsixjjpsx ajBW tiuoo Qdt rfoXxIw j-oisl lo 

iju^tla j8 xfo&e 8£w ei©ilt cfisxld" ©fcuXo 

yjsffl it^oet^fJ^B &Bdt no esxtx/t; owj- to toltrav axlj- Jfixli- oa n^msail edt lo 

no'.v be listBiibed by us. 

The court refuse! instructions Nos. 31, 33, 33, 34 and 35, 
requested by defendant. The 31st was that there was no stattte in 
force requiring defendant to ring a bell or blow a whistle for the 
crossing in question.. We think it might very well have been given 
in view of the 5th instruction given for plaintiff that the violation 
of any sti.tute designed for the protection and safety of the public 
is negligence per se, if it is the proxiirate cause of an injury; but 
there was nothing in plee lings or proof or in instructions p-iven for 
rl£>intiff to indicate that plaintiff claimed that a st?vtute required 
defendant to ring a bell or blow a whistle at that farm crossing, and 
therefore it seems to have been naneceseary to give this. Pesides, 
plaintiff was claiming that the common l»w and the surroundings at 
the crossing did require defendant to give signals. The jury aight 
not have understood the difference between common law and s-^-atute and 
might hf-ve interpreted this as an instruction that there was no law 
requiring defendant to give siggals at that place/ It was net error 
tp refuse it. The 32nd instruction wj; a sufficiently ooverel by 't: ven 
inatudtions. The same is true o"^ ths 33rd and 34th, anl also of the 
3?th, except that it undertook to tell the jury tbe purpose of the 
law requiring a head light to be maintained :..nd this was no"^ a matter 
upon 'vhich it was neceR-ary to instnuot the jury* 

Oompaint is made of instructions given for plaintiff. No. 3 
tcld the jury that they were at liberty to disregard the testimony of 
any witness who had knowingly ani wilfully sworn falsely in a matter 
material to the issue, except so far ?.3 corroborated, etc. It is 
claimed by defendant that there jvae no witness to whom It could apply. 
We are of opinion it was a proper insturction under the eviience in 
this record. The criticism u;on plaintiff's other instructions, ex- 
cept Nos. 1 and 8, do not require further discussion. No. 1, besldee 
other matter, told the jury that if plaintiff's Intestate w-; e in the 


.Bsj '{rf bsdaatBtt scf von 

♦ -'■-*■" - ■■ 1 

nl 9irtjL\. .... falS eriT .*n^iTa^fi>i; Yd" t&tssupQz 

arit lOl sXJaldv. ^flli ot tasbas^Qb "gatzlispot soaol 

nevig iTBQd ©v^r." ^ xnixl* sW .aot&eQUp ni gnlaaoio 

noi:t'.?Ioiv s^![:^ tfirfi" .. - -^ aol&Quiifsal dtS 9d& lo wslv ni 

oildi/q 9rft ^0 ytst^e - ..- ...,_,; l ~^r..'r-i ^,rfrr toI isengiasJb acJ-i/t^ts y^-S "to 

tx/cJ jTTUCfii ne "to 98i/£0 st^mlxo'..., — - ._ .- ..: ,»8 i^q sonagilgen el 

Tot nftvi-o exioi^oun+arri fll to toorrq lo s§ni£)99lq al grrMJon e£w aiadt 

^'^-40p91 otxr:f.s*8 jb j-.srft\b»mJt£lo l^tiitnijslq *jsrf* e&spttat o* ^^ijJ-fllilq 

- .; . ,gn.c?eoao HTp**- *8rf# f^ el+afrfw £ Trolrf to Ilacf « gnlT o^ faBba&^ab 

^aeJbxeg'I .eirfJ =^v'-t r.-f ^^^ ^-?>-:)rtrrtT .f = -rf 3V£ri o& atfl'^--" -^ 8T0l9T&rf;t 

+ ' '-"ntbnuofWB ... - -■' ■or'irBi^.,.. — . IliJaiaXq 

_,, ^+Lf-" ■••= ;,;... , — :. :. .,..._.. :,„..,_.__ ... _ : .:faTSl5flti/ 9V*xf ^on 

wii- >.. ...v STsrf* ■'^prrf -;r> r +r c.-t •f■^^i QJB 6^ Bidf £)a*0TqT9*nx sVjjri Jrfgim 

toT''= +'i.-r rr :r +T "='I..^B[gia avlg ot ta^i ■■^^'^■^^i ynlrtupei 

nsv .:^ltoiiriQai XsmSS ©rf' .. oeulOT q* 

arfr^ . :^ _. - H".+ T-o sut* si em^e srfT .snox^fcotenx 

?*.'^-' " ^. •'■-■- ^d^ XifJl. - - ot iood-TaJbnw *i v*.rf(;? tqeoxs ,rf*3S 

Ts*-? ■ r- - rafti^^niBm ad od- *rfgil fcf^arf .^. -jntitupsi msL 

- ■'* d-oi/trtani o:f x'^^^-^^osa a.;v. Ji rio ir'/- fic^ir 
f.+oiJT*Bnl "io ©tjsatf Bx taifiqisoC 

sdiX .+£ &T?7? Y9rf* .i«if;t v:TiJ{; 9£f:f tlc:f 

'^' Ifljs \fIsni'.'von3r i:\sri oriw aasnJlw \a£ 

08 rf-q90X9 ,«ueal ecit o* rjBlTa^fjsffi 

i-^fvv r,f p. r.' eisiit tsdt insbaalieb ^d l&mlelo 

.._ .taqoTq B 6sn tl aolsitqo I'b-axe sW 

' : :'lq troc'u waxofrf-iTO 9ffT .bioosr' Btdt 

a-:tl u" eirupsT ton ob ,8 ta^ I .aoK j-qac 

■'t vxui; erf* i:Xo:f tio&*-jim laricf-o 

exercise of orilinary care anl oaution for his own safety and if the 
j\iry believed from the evidence that his death was proximatedly 
caused by the negligence of the defendant, the jury should find the 
defendant guiltyo» To make this a perfect instruction it should have 
submitted to the jury also the question whether defendant was neg- 
ligent in the respects charged in the declaration, specifying them. 
The 8th insturction contains the same defect or omission. These in- 
stnuctions lid not directly assume that defendant was negligent. The 
jury could not find that the negligence of defendc.nt caused ^he in- 
jury without first finding that defendant was negligent. In Taylor 
V. Felsing, 164 111. 331, tne 4th instruction given for plaintiff 
began as an abstract proposition of law and then said th?t if in 
such case an injury resulted to the servant from the defects specified 
in the abstract pripoBition while plaintiff was in the exercise of 
ordinary care for his safety "from the negligence of his employers in 
manner and form as charged, " then the servant could recover . It was 
not distinctly left to the jury to decide whether the employer was 
negligent in manner and form as charged. The form of the instruction 
T' s not approved but it was held not reversible error. In the present 
case instruction No. 16, given at the request of defendant, told the 
jury that before they would be warranted in finding the plaintiff 
sertain things must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, one 
of which was "that the defendant was guilHy of negligence th?.t was 
the proximate cause of the injury" so that the jury were informeil that 
to authorize a recovery negligence of the defendant muB+ be proved and 
that siid nfgligenoe w-as the proximate cause of the injury. Said in-s 
structions 1 c.nd 8 o\ight also to h ve told the jury for what acts of 
negligence recovery could be had, restircting them to those charged 
in the decl-.ration, but defendant's instruction on the subject w?.s 
in equally gtneral terms, and there was no proof tending to show any 
other negligence th: n the matters we have referred to, and we are of 
opinion that there was no evidence which could have led the jury to 


3d* \i ta£ ^ie't^e awo sirf ':cot noifuso trtjs 9i£0 Y'l^Q-t^io "^o saloiaxs 

YlJb9t5iBxxoiq 9JEW ni-sQb Bid &s.::i sonafciva ©rft mon^ ijsvsilsd Yx^i; 

erft fcnil tliforfa yiwr 3a';t , tii.3i>no!;9i) srft ^o sonsgilgaxx 9il;t- yd fceai/ao 

av^xf bXvode it ^oxd•oi)x:^&flJ: j-oslaaq jb aXd^ sal^m oT ^icj-liug ^aabaQ^et 

.««xi* jjnJiif'iiosQ'e ^aoi^eiJBloei) ad* fli ijagiiido ed-odqeei sxit al ias-gil 

-al seed? -noxaeimo ic joe\et- ©miae ddcf'aoo noiJoxi/tsiix dtQ adT 

exlT .iJaesiXgefl a£W i-a^ae'iet isd& aaursais Y-Cii"osiJti3 *oii til aaoiiouatB 

-fli erit £)esx;?o +a^i)csi3b lo aoiissxlgsn ©£f;t cf^dd- tail i-oa tluoo \isJi, 

zolveT nl .^-nagilssn a-w cfn^bxialab d-isriJ- gniLnil teiil fuodtlx: y.'tiJt 

lljttxii^-siq To!^ navi§ noi*ouid-enJi il*l^ sr.t »!££ .1X1 i'SI ^snieXa"^ ♦v 

al tt tsdt tisa aed& bas w«I ^o noi^xeoqoiq iorjiieda a^ an ii^sgad 

fceiTiloaqa eios^'-Bt ad* moil tn£Vrds sdt o* ijad-Iweai x'wi,ai nj^ asso riox/a 

lo aaiciexe sd* at bjbw "^Ix+ai^Xq aXlrfw aoxd-iaoqliq i-o:3iJ-ad^ ad* nl 

ai eTSYoXqfiia sxd ^o eoflssiXgau Bdt xoxV yJ©1js8 aid ^ol; qi&o \,z^aitro 

Bjsw .tl . i3V0cei bluoo ^xiisviea ed* nad* " ,i)asi-^dc bj: mio j: £a£ lannsai 

ei-''7 Ts^olqma adJ aeri^adw sbloab o& xtul ad* ol izBL YX*oai*Bit *on 

nox*Oi;i-^axxi ad* ^o miol adT .bagijsdo 8£ atol ta& isaa^Si. at JnagiXgan 

*aaaa*iq eri* al .to-ria aXdiaasvai *on isXad ajsw *i *xjd tsvoiqq^ *oa ear 

ad* tXo* ^ia,'ibae'i6b xo iassjpB'z sd* *£ navig ,3X .oW floi*oi;i*ani: aa^o 

^ll*fli.6Xq ad* gaifcnil aX X)9*aaiX£w ©d IjXjuow ijad* 9iol;acf *£d* 'iXisi, 

9no ,eoa9f:Jtva eif?- *:o 3oa£iaX)noqaTq x: ^d Levoiq sd *8x;ra agnxd* niB*T88 

aoxragxXsan xo Y^-^i-i^ sjsw jn^aaiafc ad* *jsd*'' a^w doidw 1o 

*ed* ij5mTo1:fli aasv viwj; ad* *J8d* oa "xiulat ad* lo aex;^o a*3iHXxoiq Qdt 

has- bsvQiq ad *ai/m *ff^aal8Jc sdt 1o aonagiXsan ^c'^QVooai s asXiod*jj£ o* 

^-nl ti.38 .-fix/tai ad* ^o saitao •*?*°rxxo'rq ©d* es-w eortagiXsgn i)iia *jBd* 

lo ato^ *j8dw lo'i Y^"/^ ad* bl: o* 03X£ Jriguo 8 Ln-s X enoi*oxjT*8 

lia^T^rio saod* o* mad* 3ni*orri:*eaa ,t,sd ad iXwoo yi^voosi eonagxXgan 

8.3W *oa!;d0a ad* no noi:*oi/i*enx e '*a£f:>a93:at *i;d ,noX*i3ii;XoeX ad* at 

xas wode o* :5aXJbn6.+ Uooiq orr o«w aiad* ^xie ,8rna9* X^aaaelB ^XXsx/pe nX 

"Jo a':.^. aw fcaos ,o* taits' •. sv; BTa**j6in ad* a^d* aonegXXgan iad*o 

03 x'^i sd* ^Q-*^ av£;d XxJLfoo doXdw aoaativa on bjsw aiad* *£d* noinlqo 

firld defendant guilty of any other negligence. 

It is i-rgued th-it the dania.ges are eMcensive. The proof 
is thc.t Petro was 5C years old at the time of his leat'^ and 
thr.t he made about ^3,000 per year at farming, which had al- 
ways been his business. There was no proof tc the contr^cy. 
We cannot say that his future life would not have bsen worth 
to hia family the amount of the judgment. 

It is contended that the declaration doe? not sta-^e a 
cause of action because it only alleges due care when dec- 
eased wag on the railroad track ani not as he approached it. 
Defendant dii not demur to the declaration and did not move 
in arrest of judgment and we are of opinion that the sviff- 
iciency of the declaration is not presented for our consid- 
eration. But, if it had been so raised, the allegations are 
not as supposed. The term "farm crosing" as used in the de- 
claration, means the entire passageway from the gate in the 
west fence to the g..te in t".:e e' st fence, and it is that 
croBsing and not merely the s^ace between the rails of the 
west track which the declaration avers that he was walking upon 
in the exercise of due care for his own s?.fety, that is, as he 
was approaching the railroad tracks. 

The case is a close one because of the evidence o" the fire- 
man, but we are of the opinion that after two verdicts foe 
plaintiff the record ioes not require us to submit the case to 
another jury. 

The judgment is therefore affirmed. 


tooiq 5 .iareoxs stjb 38^J3Hi.3h arit ;t-3£f* bsirgi^ ai 71 

tn£ :jset sid to ernx.t 3:i.t :fj6 LIo eijgsy 03 a*=w 01^9*? &sd& at 

"£& bi-d rioxriw .gnJtairrs^ 1'^ 1,69^ Tsq 000, Sj &sJocf£ dissor sri tsrf* 

.ifa^T+iToo srfrf' 0+ 'iooiq on asw s^sdT .aeeni^-af siri nsscf a^-'s^ 

rftio-^' rr^ar; er ff 'on fcli/ow sill sisjfuJ *lrf *rx-f.+ Y-sa ionajzo sW 

.Jaamgri/Q srfi' "io itni/onus srft ^X-?""^ el.-l o;f 

£ 3&~fs tea 530I) xroJtteiBlosfc 9d& i::d& bsbas^tico st &l 

-csi: nsrfw eirfc segslli! i{Ino #1 oeiusosd xiotto^ 1:o 

..+1 isifofiOTCTa^ eri 2£ *Qa tct^ -Acaif bnorllsi 9ri* rto S3W i39a.?9 

avorr: .ton tit bas aottsislosb sdi ojf iwrnaJL- &on Lib tajsfcns'iea 

-3tliia erfjj' &£idf nolatqo ^o 9t£ ew bns .tnarnghuQ "io i-a^eiTJs nx 

-btsaoo mq tol baiasRSiq ioa si ao£.&sT.n£o9b sdt "lO rfonslol 

5i£ snoiJ^geXIis erft ^fcaelji-i os nascf l:.Bff c t 1:1 ,*xjS .noiJ-sis 

-sJb ecft ni basjj aa "gni^eoic mtci^l:" mis* exlT .fcaeoqai/s ajj tfon 

srfcf ni 9J"'£S ®^'* ■'^ottl Y-"W9S£e5>sq STxtrra 9r:# snjrsm ^aoi&3t3£o 

i-jBffj- si rf-i bae .sonsl ta^s srlJ nx 9&i'g arfcf o* sone'i tes^r 

sdi lo bLI^i edi a99^.vd-ecf scjscra srf* ^Istem ton ba^ "gaisaoto 

aocM 3xil>fl£w asw sri iMt 8T9V5 nolt^iJoXoafc srl* xlolrfw Ho^tsit t89w 

9xf sjb ,sx tBdt ^\te1.36 nwo sirf to^ sijbo ex/i* iO eaxoisxa srld- cii 

,aioBii^ bsoillsi erft grrlifo.oiqq^ aiw 
• 9t1^ sxft 5o 9ons£-xv9 Bd& ^o sai/^osd eno eaolc ^ si ease sriT 

(sail 8*oii>^»v ovt totlz ^£d^ aoxnlqo 3ri.t lo 0T/5 9w tud ,nj3m 
o* 98iio 9d& ttrnduB c+ su eili/psi ton aaol: i^Tooai srf* Ultnij^Xq 

.^iwr T9Xf*onJ3 
.i>9fCTil'l£ siolQisdt at ;tn9m§i;u(; srfT 



SECOND DISTRICT. |" ^^' I. ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof. 

do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in 

the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of 
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty. 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 



Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of October, 
in the year of our- Lord one thousand nine hun/red and 
twenty, within and for the Second District ft the State of 
111 ino i s : 

Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres id irj|| Jus t i ce 
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Jus t i 
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Just 
CURt\^. AYERS, Sheriffs 

2191.A- 635 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on October 
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the 
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following, to-wit : 

Gen. No. 6903 
Orin 0. Cgle, et c.l. , 
V8 Appele from Henderson^ 

Chrrles H. Ditto, 

Appellee • 


Dibeil, P. J. 

Orin 0. Ogle Tom Ikney sued Charles H. Ditto to recover 
coMi-'niasiona for bringinp; hire a buyer for his farm. The declaration con- 
siatei of taree special counts and the comrr!cn count?. Defendant pleaded 
the genere.l issue. At the close of plaintiff^ 8 proofs the court dir- 
ected a verdict for defendant, which tjz-.b rendered. A motion for a new 
trial by plaintiffs w'..£ denied. Defendant had judgment and pl-^intiffe 
appeal. The verdic" entitled defendant to a judgment in bar, but such 
judgment was no"^ rendered. Tovm of Magnolia v. Kays, 300 111. App, 133, 
If the point had Ijeen rb-is-jd by counsel, it would h^ve been oxrr duty 
to return the record to the court below for a proper judgment. 

In iuly, 1319, plaintiffs were in partnership as real estate 
agents and defendat had a farm v;hioh he wished to sell. He had asked 
I'SOCCC per ;-cre but ^e entered into an arrangement with plc.intiffs on 
July 14 that if they would bring him a buyer for the farm at #190.00 
per acre, which they figured would amount to fSl, 160.00, he would give 
therf: the $1,16C.C0, and he would give them thirty days in which to do 
"ihis. They enters! into negotiations -.vith Torr: 0*M&lley and his father, 
Hugh O'Mi-lley, by which Hugh O'Malley agreed -^o buy the pro-^erty at that 

rico/ It ;y, f. arranged between all aparties that O'Malley should give 
■ note or check for a certain sxim and the balance in crsh on ths first 
of Msrch following. O'Malley made and signed such a note and arr-?nged 
with a local bank that it would cash the note for defendant at any 

, .1^ *s ,9X30 .C ninO 

,ottia .H ssXxerfO 

.L .^ ,XX9dia 

TSVOCS1 ct T':*-!? .^' agX-Ti^ffr: qo^Sl moT i)ni3 eXgO .0 nxiC 

-noo acitaT£Xc!9fc srfT .mt^l sM loi rts^i^cf j3 iiiM anignirrcf lol BaoiBalsmoc 

fcsfc^eXq faetas^teG .i&msoo noiimc ;£ atnuoo Xjsiosqa 9»T(it lo leJ-eie 

-Tifc tTuoo sff^ etooiq a^'ilitatal ■ -.jisnag axlj 

•:v2n .^: -rot rro'-'ct: . ioldv ,tn>abn9^9i) 10^ toifciav .z £9*09 

a'^lJttniBlq fcnB itnsaigtjJt fcrcdleQ .isXn 3'i■:'2:^aJ:iiXq yd X^ii^ 

rfouB. *wd ,T£cf ai tn9m:?f;0(; . Lcs^-si; h&ltitc^ &ottiQV BiiT! .XjsaqqjB 

,%.-. . lA .1X1 OOS .bybX .V lo nwoT .iaisfcasi .*on 8£W d^ngrngti/j, 

yti/Jc TX/o ansd 3^'-:^ fclwow ti .Xs^ ^tst aeod b£d iatoq 8d& II 

.tnem^tjjj; i? toI woXgd" 1-icuoc sad" orf- bToosrr edt aiij&ei ot 

9*j6.t83 lB9i eB ql- .^'ni^Xq «GX9X ,^Xjjt al 

bsiss biitl 9H .XX98 of to:' sd J^fcnglgt tn^s aia^-ga 

ao sf^ttni ilq dilvi - - teie:fne 9:f tud eio.; loq OO.OOS'^ 

OO.OGX* t aol iBXi^ ■ I.UOW ^9il:f li :f^J- *X ^Xi;L 

avl^ tX^'cw 9£f ,00.09X»XSt o& ^nsjosris LXaow Jbsxugll x^dt iloixfw ,910-2 T9q 

,T9rf*j='^ sirf l)XT£ ^eXIsM^O moT di' 'ilfozsn c *ni ieiatng ^exfT .si:. 

Jjsrit *JB v*n9qo-rq 5d& ^wd - :'i'C rf3uH doMv 'ftf .yaXX^M'O rlgu 

evig blsjoda ^fsXX^M'C nasw,t9<i fcega^iis q.-sw tl XooXa 

^ati^ ©xff no dB.fio al ©onjsX^sd 9. -tie nls^tBo -: toI: sfoerfo 10 eioa .. 

fc9Snf>i« ^-c^ »*c« £ dofSB tsa-glB ta£ sb£ffi xBllsM^O .gniwoXXo^ xIot^M 'io 
vits :^s tci^bae^Bb iol 9r£on grit deso blvo^ *i c^^rf* ^lo^d Xi=ooX £ rfjiw 

time he wanted the money, and defendant was notified of that arrange- 
ment. O'Malley arranged with the bank for the c^-sh to pay for the 
land on Maroh first. The proof was explioit that O'Malley was ready, 
able and willing tc pay for the farm at the time named. After def- 
endant had [jiven plaintiffs authority to bring hiir; a buyer for the 
land on the terraa named an J h. i agreed what their coripensation should 
be and had agreed they should have thirty dayg within -vhich to find 
such buyer and hai agreed that during that thirty days he would not 
sell the lani himself, hs toll them that he wanted the contract ani the 
deed to contain a provision to permit him to hunt upon the ladn. 
Plaintiffs told hini that it probably could not be sold with that pro- 
vision, and he told thesj in effect that he v^ould not insist upon it 
if it would prevent a ssle. IVhen this was maie knovvn to 0'MalL.ey a-^ter 
he had agreed to buy the property on the terms previously named, he 
said to defendant that defendant was welcome to hunt on his land and he 
would give defeniatn a 'Txitten permit to dc so, but he could not allow 
that tc go into the oontrcct or deed, for thot would create a cloud upon 
the land. The agents had a contract prepared and signed by O'Malley 
which did not contain the hunting privilege, and it was left at the 
bank for defendant's sign:; tare . Defendant caused an o-^ficer of another a 
bank to prepare another contract with that provision in it, which def- 
endi.nt executed and left at that bank for OtMalley's signature. It is 
said tho.t there was some slight defect in the description in the first 
contract, but wh-.t it was dees not appear. OtMalley went tc look at the 
land again and di i no^*^ ge'. cake in time to go to the second bank that 
day. The next morning defendant telephoned that as O'Malley did not 
sign the contract hy eight o'clock of the preceding evening, the deal 
was o-^f and hs rruat have $300.00 per acre for his land. This suit 
f ollowid. 

What plrintiffg were authorized tc sell wag the entire land. 
The right which defendant afterwards proposed to reserve in the contract 


erf* io1 ■ 

tfort M0OW 
Qdj- f n^? oo^^iv -IOC 

.!xt.&£ 5dt no Of/ *nxfrf c 
-orq ji:ri.+ ntiw : 

:fx nocTi; rf-eieiii ;fon fcluov 
19*^5 YellBM'O 0.+ rnvofia Ji^,r :" 

Sri LflJB fciijsl a. 
voLLb ton blii : 

-Ist rioix:: 

9i .11 .3":x/:t-jefrBxs efysl. ' 

Q.rii :!. ,: iocX o.i 

loa tlL v£l.! 

:^i!' . 



Biri :tc 


.:ia8 0.1 


rf3-iw iiegnaa-cjs yell-sM'O .j-nera 

.oTq »ffT .+eTll rloiiJM no tasL 

..aiLilvi ,j)bxijs _<»l,d£, 

■^amjia axaxaJ sxicf' no bajsl 

L'lisods ^cedt Lseigjb i)arf Lnn ecf 

•fc ;fj3rlcf Jb99i3£ tjid haj^ ^Q\M9 doi/a 

loj- 3ri tiXsaiaiil tasl adt XXsa 

crrieq o^ noiaivoiq -s nijizfnoo ot t99t 

;i;t ffixri cXo* allitatsl^ 

o9ll9 at taadt bloj- ed ba£. \aolBtv 

ri.+ naifP .!?I'^9 .3 *n9V9T'7 t£uow d-i 11 

fcn9'!-9fc -^fcnglrei: o* ti.£e 

+ f ftp^st 9Vis tXxjow 

: og 0^ tadi 

TXiosiq *c-c=atnoo s t£d B*rt93J0 orfT .JbnxX 9il* 

^nitrruri sdt nipfaoc foa fcxL rfoiriw 

. xL.j-r'n^xe 8•t^i5^a8l9£l lol ainjecf 

:-ti5q9Tq o* injsd 

aJtXe 9mx)« 8.<:w ortfeflJ c^.orii• Li£s 
^IIbM)^0 .ij39qq£ ion aeob a£W *! f^^rfW fud jtoJiTitnoo 

*on Mh tfl£ nljsgii' biusX 
i-n^sfciia^efc Snlmonr *xeft Bitt .yist 
' *flsi9 yrf tojBTitnoo grii" xigle 
isq OO.OCSl evM t^i/m 9H" tCUB 1*40 'b^tt 

'l^ltirlJSXq *£XfW 

and dcel, to hunt upon the premises during his life would Yisve eat- 
abliaed and ciaie of record \That i=3 known as a right of way in gross, 
and it would have given him the right of access to and egrees from 
this land at his will iurinf^ hie lifetime. This would have been to 
ret;erv« an interest ia tte premises which would be regarded as a bur- 
den thereon. Willou^hby v. Lawrence, 116 111. 11, After defendant 
had authorised plaintiffs to fini him a buyer withing thirty days for 
a certain price for the entire far.T, he could not change the terms 
so as to reserve an er-.sement in himself for his life and thus defeat 
a sale to the buyer whom they had procured, ani thereby defeat their 
right to the agreed commissions. In Fox v. Ryan, 340 111. 3Si, the 
rule applicable is thus st- ted; "Where a brtfraer ia employed to sell 
property by the ovmsr, if he produces a purch'ser wi-^hin the time 
limited by his authority who iz ready, willing an.i able to purchase 
the property upon the terms proposd by the seller, he is entitled to 
his commissions, even though the seller refuses to perfor.-n the contract 
on his part." To the I'ke effect is Oliver v. Sattler, 333 111. P38. 
We do net think it ought ■'•o be hell, unier the facts in this case, that 
a written contr- ct must be signed by both parties before the Viroker 
has becoKe enti^:led to his comirissions where, as here, the broker 
prepared a contract ani the buyer signed it and left it where the seller 
could sign it, but the seller r6fu-:ed to do so and reo.uired the inser- 
tion therein o" the reserv-^.tior. of an easement not embodied in his or- 
iginal ccntrE-ct with the brokers. The thrity days had not expried. 
The agents had done all they could to h:^ve the seller sign the contract 
which they h?. d prepared, which conformed with the terms of their em- 
pl03rment and which the buyer has signed. The failure o'!' the seller to 
sign was his own fault, ani indeed, it may well b'^ that the contract 
which the buyer did sign was binding upon hia-i and could have been en- 
forced by the seller withou-^ his signature thereto. Ames v. Moir, 
130 111. 582j Memory v. ITeiport, 131 111. 633; Forthman v. Deters, 306 


-TL'c - .^o . :^^ ..V 898 Iks .; . .. -.; ta9tsfat n^ svisasi 

!fn5iifl& ox, .^ ... .-i .1X1 3X1 ,90£t9TW£j .V Ydrf^jjoIXiT^ .nosaariJ rret 

emi3t •^^■'*- -• at;rfry :fo.- ^. ..... ..J ». .,- ^. .:;..>. 3ri# ro^ sotiq alstr^o "£ 

■^-reJab .... -.i,3 9^1X alri t:o^ tXeemlrf at ^aemea<=-9 fiJ3 evieasi ot e^' np 

ii=vr::r d-£s^9f5 Ycfs^srf^ ^^■^ ^t°^ruoo^:q t.zd ^grf* morfw ig-^ucf erf* ot eXse ., 

sf^d- »iec .1X1 Ol-S ^aB^H .V xol nl .anoleaim^r- ^op-r^£ g^f^ {jrf- trfgii 

IIsB ot bexoLqme si ifSiBn'id js gterfW" {Let.'-.&B c- .. ,. _ sXcfJSoJtXqq^ gXiri 

Qmit sriv r'"-'"- fw 'Tcic-rroxuq a sBouboiq ed. "ii ,i9m70 '^-■■■»' '^cT Y^tgqoTq 

*•- -" f- „,_ ,;''fT-r .yrb^et st orfw yiJ'ii^^^'^' fcetifiril 

s.. ,:,x.^ ... ... .--. ,rj:sIX9c. .,- \..- fiEoqoiq amiet 9.: ....... vtigqoiq 9ri;t 

;toj?'i.'^rroo sif.^ niTo'tsq o# 83B0^9t: i9XX9a erf* if'§x;orf+ ^ov^ .grroraa-Jtmitioo a Iff 
.as" .III &£S ,a9X:^vts8 .v --- frr o •• cfo9t^9 93l:_ ... , .: ".itsq airf no 

tpff^ ,9aP0 elrlt rti ©*o«& - :.- , -orf 9cf o+ fri^x/o ^i. Intd^ ton ofc sW 

TSjfoiri srf* 9T0^9a' e9ltT.';-' ■*.-■ vd tsfigiR scf tai/rr. to..?lfrtoo n9t*XTW ,8 

igioicf 9rf:^ ,9'i9ri e^ - -.ijiaaitifnoo sirf o* beitt'tae amobad aJBri 

*i9Xl9a r " ^' ■' 'i ■!'^. r cgrcgxa -rs^x/d sri* Ins *SJ3tt/ioo 's i9Tnq9Tq 

-TSBnJ: _ ot bsBuJei TdXXaa sdf tu(S «J1 ff^-ta £Ijjoo 

-TO ai:i r.i fcglfco--- .-.- tassisase n& "io rT0i*.?VT989'i &df to nl9T9rft nol* 

.£iSjtTqx9 Jofi t^rf a^jafc TjJii:.'-f ^x-f^ . ;vi9::ot(j' o.n't d.tiw to-3T:fxioo X^ni^i 

■topi^fnoo sn:" n-Ja 'i- 'Iss e:! .. -?noJi) t-srf atn93£ 9rfT 

-m9 fl-: ;oli.'ir!' «fc9i^qe'iq fc.-rf Y^rf* rloirfw 

0* TSJ" .f:e::n2s 5.^.'' i^viitf 9ri:^ rfolrfw fcn^ tnsmYOlq 

•to..i-trr: ; ,tXjjj^ cpwo eirf a^w-flgla 

Qnii)nicJ esw agla ttb Tavx/d 9xfJ rfolilw 

^ . ._ -+.^n;nia aid .^irorftiw laXXsa sAi ^d b^otot 

,-:,n,- .To-f.r .V 't-mf- .-. IcI ^tToqigT! .V YionaM iS82 .XII 0£I 

111. 159; Miers v/ Chi.s. H. Fuller Cc, 167 Ii: . App. 49j Lowber 
V. Connit, 36 Wis. 17r; Dupuis v. Kipnic, 111. App. Defendant 
hs-.B Ro right to t-ike this l-rd out o"" t>'e hvnle of the pl-.intiffs 
iurinp the ghirty ii-vs. The evidence cre-.tes the impresf-ion th^t 
defendant insiBted on thip huntinp; reservation in order to prevent 
a sale o;' t":e property at $19C.C0 per r.cre. App^irently v7hen he found 
thp-t $190' per acre could be obtained, he decided th-.t he would 
abv.n Jon th-it oropcsition Find hharee $20C.OO per ^ore. ^e of 
opinion the court should not h? ve directed ;:. verdict for defendant. 

PliiintiffB insist that even if the trail court was right 
in holding th^^t they could not recover under their contract, still 
they should h-ive been permitted to recover under the ccmircn counts. that position n-dght be supposed to be sustained by Richardson 
V. Aiken, 84 111. S31, but we regard P?.rly v. F£-rr?.r, 169 111. 606, 
and Icwrence v. Rhodes, 188 111. 96, as concluaice against that pos- 
ition us applied to the f'-c-'-a in this Oase. 

The judgeratn is therefore reversed an I the cause remanded. 


TsdwoJ {Qi- .7":A .8£xlD Vv aisJtW [Q51 .ill 

8't' ^i'^ 9:<i5* o* Jrlgii on a^d 

■IT .aY-3i- \{.tTirfg ^rft gnitut 

Jbflir: 3 £ 

on tijjofia Jtuoo sxlt nolniqo 
aiani aUx.tni : 

rii-^ tsvoost ;ton fcljjoo ^{Qff ,ixitIorl ni 

.£+0j.foc .70.; -f Tstrrjj isvooai o:f fce^timTsq ndsd 9v>^ri iii/orfe ysrft 

.e08 .III *8 ,f»:(iA .V 

-307 iBrft tar: ~ .V 9on3iwi>I fcn£ 

^"^^IcoND msTmc'^'''''' !-• I, ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, 

do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in 

the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

■ In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of 
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty. 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

^-^ A^, j^: 



Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of October, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and 
twenty, within and for the Second District/of the State of 

Illinois; :- ' 


Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justic^'. 
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Justice. 
ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk. / 

CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff. / 

219I.A. 635 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on October 
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the 
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following, to-wit: 

Gen. No. 6806 

Ch.rles M. Glidden, 


vs. Appeal from Peoria, 

H rrington Mi.niif;.ct- 

uring Co., u Corporation, 

Appellant, ^ 


HG^.rd, J. 

August 31, 1918, between three L^nd three- 
thirty o'clock P. M. Ci-ppellee, who w:.3 riding a. bicycle on West 
Washington street, in East Peoria, was run over and badly in- 
jTired by an automobile truck belonging to appellant. Appellee 
broug;ht suit against appellant to recover damages for the in- 
juries he had sustained and in his declaration, consisting of 
four counts, in tho first count ch rged general negligence in 
driving and miin:;uging the automobile truck, in the second count 
charged driving the truck at an unlawful rate of s^^ped, in the 
third count a failure to sound a horn or ';:;ive warning and in the 
fourth count chared wilfull negligence. The foiirth count was 
taken from the jury by the court and no cros > error has been as- 
signed. The trial in tht^ circuit court resulted in a judgment 
for ^7500 in favor of appellee, from which judgment appellant hag 
perfected this appeal. 

The street upon which the accident occurred ia the main 
street connecting Peoria and East Peoria, in ./hich latter place 
re situated several larije manufacturing establishments, in one 
of which, the Holt Manvif^-cturing Co., appellee was em])loyed. 

West Washington street at the time of the accident .i-nd 
for a long time prior thereto vvas being, repaired and the street 
c.-x tru-oks thereon b?ing remove i from the outer edge of the street 
• to the center. The street car tr cks on the left-hand :;ide of the 


8088 .oK .neO 

.nsi.LxIC .M seli.iifD 

-soiiJ in.; oexdd 
^ssW no elOYO-- 

©sXIeyqA .dr. 

io gnlJeian' 

-j-c -lufi-jM not3nlax;H 

iqq^ .M .'I /I'oolo'o vJ-TlriJ 

^.E ni tJ-L'sai-B not^nlxIe-^W 

qnolQcT jfojjit e II cfotnoJxjjj n^; vd boisj\^ 

3qq£> )Bat£-; &tis& tri^X/OTCf 

taiJtl i.'Xl;f ni: tS^mroo ixrol 

dru/oo Lnooee ed* nJt ^:iotJit elxcforaoJxjjG adt ^xxis-j^ian hnos ^nivlxb 

orf- eiJjLtJix . j-mroo JLrridd- 

i-iif^Iiw l:;6^a£fic &ns.rov dtivol 

i Y'^C srfd- moil xi92f.u* 

ni Ij^Jti* axfT .Lsn^la 

Slid- nl . "iwxjlmj 

Slid ni in/, gninij^vi 8Vi;3 lo niod 

i^iiw d^nuoo dd-ujo!i: sdT .90x1 
-f-;; nsecf 83x1 ic .10 on j 

cfnemgiii; i; ..-; ni Letlifsei d-iu. 
BJsxl dasIXeqq-.. j-nsarabxri; rloirlv, ladi'l ^aelleqc:.^ lo iov.5!t nJt Ooe.V$ lol 

,I.oO'-q-i Bld& Lodoelieq 
ni .111/000 d-nai'xr. iztdv aoqss d-oei*8 adT 

.oJtdw al 4j:;i 109*1 ta^S .osl loxiitoennoo *©6id-e 

sxc- 3 sniiLfd-c.ilr/n ■: X^iisvs>p istJ^yd-la ei^ 

.i>:" .oD ■gniisjio^ilua^ tXoH ©jdt ^doJtxIw lo 

baa &nbLi ©1*8 noitgnidEj-jr taeW 

d'asite atfd- IjAx V'd-eieifd- loxt:': jrai* gnoX jb 101 

' ifcjo add- mc :. ncoiorfd' B^foxiid' x.^o 

adi lo Qbtb ba.j.d'-i'teL edi no a3fOi:id' xuo d-seid-g ©xlT .isd-nsc edi ot 


street going to.VL^rd Peoria wore first ch-nged and put in the oenter, 
and tho pavement was l--ii on the left-hand aide in advunoe of thctt 
on the right hi^nd aide of the street, 30 th;..t trcvel could continue 
on the left-hand side, while the right hand side was being fixed aa 
aforesaid. In connecting th-; new street car tracks from the point 
where it had been changed to the center of the street, ./ith the old 
track which was still 6n the outer edge of the right hand aide, the 
tracks ajgled over in th.; form of a "Y" ;i.nd this point, which it is 
..greed was at the Peoria or west entrance of the Altorfer Washing 
Machine Company, is referred to -.ll the way thr ought the evidence 
as the "Y", Up to this point the street was repaved and in good 
condition on both sides of the street, but from there on the right- 
hand side of the street was all torn up, full of holes, ^.nd ^ lot 
of cinders and old brick dunrped there in irregular piles, causing 
the right h-.nd side of the street to be in .:.n unpassable condition. 
The street w;.3 44 feet v/ide from curb to curb and the left hand side 
vhich was open for traffic was paved from 34 to 30 feet in width for 
about 60 feet f\irther than the "Y". From the end of this paving a 
good dirt road extended on towards Peoria on the left h.-nd side of 
the street sufficiently wide for vehicles to pass e^.ch other in 
safety. • 

At the time of the accident there was in force in the 
Village of East Peoria an ordin: nee which among other things pro- 
vided as follows; 

Section 11, -Any driver or person having possession, charge 
or control of any vehicle, .irivinj on any street, shall keep as close 
to the right hand c\irb as safety and prudence shall permit, except 
when overtaking or passing another vehicle. 

Section V, -Vehicles movin ; slo.vly shall keep as close as 
possible to the curb on the right, allowing more swiftly moving ve- 
hicles free passage to their tsaty. left. 

Section VIII.-Any v hide overtaking another vehicle mov- 
ing in the same direction shall pass on the left side of the over- 
t ken vehicle. Slowly moving vehicles shall keep as close as possible 


»i8+nec 9ri* at tu i.v^v.oJ S^^OS *S9^*e 

t -dj- lo aon.-vi..-. fii -asuevaiq orii- iii^ 

8i;nlJ-noo i'Xiroo I s^Ie i;ni.ri ^ifgirt arfi" no 

e-- iiexii ^^niJd c ^©Jb'lt! ba^d-fihl arif "no 

tnioq ed* monl c ■'i'fl -iiit ^,xil;}-6©rxnoo xil .Llajaaiol^ 

ilo 8ri* d:Hvf .cfoex^ts cui ic ed* oJ ijt)Sfl->xlc noecf L.n d-i aieriw 

exlcf .6.tir Ln-rf d-figi^ tdt ^& . dciriw i[o£it 

ei ti riolilw ^;tnioq eidi bn io iaio'i . iiCf at i^vo JjeX^pfc Bafoi^aa' 

"-rij::; lZ09^ &il;f :tJ3 o^jw jjasog.^^ 

donbLive &ii uiaiei el «y^-''''I«^oO ealdosH 

boos ^^ ^^^-^ VK^Y^c j&a%i6 <-jiu oiiloq eidi" o* qU ."Y" odi- eis 

-td-f,ii adi xic foxji i-ucf jj-es- -o esLxb dtocl no noJLd-iLnoo 

-sjI «qj:; n:co '^oaicd'6 jjdcf lo ©Lie LnjEd 

^ii&jj-j^.o tb&Xxq i.oXjj-^js^xt ni eiadi- L&CjiiuiJb jiol^d LXo Lcwi eaeLnio 'io 

.n jj njj nl ed o* d-s&id-e ed^ lo &i>ip, irfUixt tii:QJii sd& 

Bbl. -idvf J&e eaxta adT 

'10';; osl jub^^ f^illiBT^ 'XQi aaqo a^iw xloidw 

v.-vi oii.^ :j ffloil ."Y" Biii ajidi %etit%sjl &e&J. OB iuoda 

tl>ux V- Irioe*? bLxbwo* xio bebae.:^xe Iuaot; *iii; i>oos 

sdd- iii: Qo:i zo saiii cd* ^A 

-oaq &-$iildt -bdd-o aa j^inos*! J-aiiS "io a-^LllY 

:bv<'oXIo^ e^ hQbtv 
385Eoq gnl- jnA-.H noi;)-083 

tslcxdav xtiJi lo loid-noo lo 

diii/o Lasd id:^li odd- oc)- 

.eioiiitiV -ao'd^t '■ 9s.. cr 10 :^,nl2l^;J'T:evo nodw 

i.IoxdeV-,V noxd-oe8 

-c ."X ed* no cfii/o adcf od- a Idl a eoq 

.^i; _ Aisiii£ ttxodd- ■ :,aijq Qea'l eaXold 

-von alcid&v 'i^Jdc^o^ai gnx-' ■i-.£iiJv noxd-oeS 

-isTo Qdi Ic "'isl 6dd no ::&oo%tb afltss adt ra gnl 

eidxKSOq a^ esolo qee^f lipids ssXoJtdev j_inxvom -^{XwoXS .eXoidev neix:;f 

to the curb on the right so as to permit f;.ster moving vehicles free 
passage on the left. 

Section XXVI, -Every person in ch rge of u. vehicle shall 
pulJ to the right aide of the street or road when signalled from a 
vehicle behind desiring to pajs. 

Section XXXVI, -The v/ord "Vehicle" when used in this or- 
dinti-nce, shall injlude'equestri^ns, led horses, coj:ri>x.ges, carts, 
drays, hackneyed coaches, omnibuses, Wi^gons, motor vehicles, and 
all other vehicles used for tr, nsporting persons or property on the 
public streets, however drawn, driven or propelled, except street 
oars, carta, carriagos, or barrows, propelled by hand," 

Section 268 p. chapter 131, Illinois Revised Statutes 
of 1917 provide: "Any such person so operating a motor vehicle or 
motor bicycle shiJl, on overtaking any such horse, -.Iraft animal or 
other vehicle, pass on the left side thereof, and the rider or driver 
of such horse, drcj-ft animiiil or other vehicle shu.ll, as S'-on as pruct- 
icable, upon signal turn to the right of the center of the beaten of such highwrty so as to allow free passage on the left," 

Appellee was an employee of the Holt Mfg, Co,, ani had 
worked on the duy of the u,ccident up to a/oout 3 o'clock P.M. when 
there was a shift #iade of the comp..ny's em- loyees. After quitting 
work he :.nd , fellow workman started home towards Peori;. on the 
street in question both riding bioycles, about two feet to the right 
of the the right rail of the street cur tracks, appellee being^t 
four feet ahead of his comp-.nion. 

Appellant's chciuffer in charge of one of its auto trucks 
came past the Holt pl^nt shortly after the 3 o'clock shift was made, 
going towards Peoria. The truck was not lo.-ied and about twenty of 
the Holt employees got onto the truck. The truck then proceeded 
astride the right hand rail of the street C-^r tr.^ck and some dist^.nce 
behind appellee. There is a sharp conflict in the evidence as to how 
this accident happened and as to where it happened on the 3tr-:et. 
There are tv/o distinct theories shown by the testimony as to how the 
accident happened. Appellant contends that when the truck had 


aail et-Ioxdov : aivom .^■.ta--i ^xra'x&q o* s-i;- oc 7:%iz -nt no dziio odd" od" 

.*'i&I ari* ao egjseE-Bq 
XX-:ii3 sXoiri&v c ni .lo -?y3-.IVXX rroid-Of-S 

^ sioii L'jII.iifl-jii;, riiii.. -.--01 xo d-ssxje ant T:o eJbie Jrigltt srf* ot loiijci 

,8..iJQ od' 3a2ax8sx^ tnirfyd sloldev 
-'10 ciut r.i Lj&u nedm "sIciiloV" ijiow edT-.IVXXX noitoeS 
,ed-'Xfcio ,8&s^.xiiiic jESeaorl i>el ^ext^iateaxfp© ebirXoni Xliidc ,acni3nxi 

ii3« ^BsXoXitQV lOtOGI (8(I0g-W ^BSBI/oirUHO t&OZtC/UOO JD©y9n7foj>ri ^aY-B^ 

©xid- no ^iieciO'iq to axsoa:E8q sixJ^ioqemji* lol bfieu asloirlov red^o Ll^ 

tasTcJ-a d-qaaxe ti>«XXtqonq to nsvXti ^nwjsti,' levswocf ,ed'a9t^8 ojticttrq 

" ,X»na3ii ^d JbsXXsqotq ^awotusd »o ^aaa-i^ittwo tUti^o «eai50 

6o*jjJjid8 LsaivsH eioflxXXI ^XSI tsj^qunr .q 83S noitooS 

to t^LclAbv 'iod-ofii . §nl;t.steqo oa noQiarr xloua ^{nA" :yt)ivotq VX9X lo 

to Laaiit^ Hj^it ^QBXQd doisa ya^ gftxij5;ttevo ao »XX--;xIfi eloyoicf tod-oni 

tevix;. to tsLlt BsLt Lms- jiootedi sLia ;f'i«X sfli' no sBisq jSloXifov tedd-o 

-d-. Xiide eXoidov tsiSd-p to X*«axnij &%^iiij jSetori xloue lo 

i.cj..„>j jxid- ij '-..Jcao sdcf' lo ^dgit edt o* nttf* Xo/r^le noqi/ «6lcrj3oi 

".*1&X »il{|- no ©gjueajsq aetlt woIXjs Oif e-^ oa Af^iWXlsM doue lo toczii 

t^d Las 4,p0 .§1M d-XoH edt lo csYoX^ffi^ fl-s s*iw seXIeqqA 

nedw .M.I MooXo'o £ d-^odij o* (jw ;J-fl»i)i&oja Qd& lo yab sdd' no i)o:ftow. 

Snlitiup tst:--A .83fjYoX>'iffe e'^nj^qmoo edi lo stoan d'lide ^ aiivc .eted* 

Bdi no ^itop^T { i tjjwot emod iieii-TSitB nimzlrov v/oXXq1 j In-v od ^ow 

j-d^^xt edd- od- &gb1 pwcf d'l/oo.ii jEoXoYOid •^aihii dtod noid-aaup nl tfoetJa 

Jj&ocTi jniod 86XXeqq£ ^asfo^td- t,.o d-9St*e odd- to .Cxj^t iJ-dglt tidd- sdt lo 

.noJ:n..:qaoo ajtd lo Ui^dG d-eel tx/ol 

Eioj.rid odJj--; sd-1 lo ano lo. agixtids at telltr::do e'^nj?XI©qqA 

^nL..:.l . ...v.' J-lXde UooLo'o S edd- -led-lij ^x^tode d-n-^Xq d-XoH odd- d-8£;q ^mso 

lo -^d-nsvd- d-yodji Jonj> bBlsoJi ion t.'-.w ^{oi/td- ©rfT .^tiool Kltxiwocf S^iOS 

LeLeaostq nedd- ^foxxtd- sriT .^foytcT edd- od"no d-og atssYoXqcre tXoH sdd- 

sonj^d-eii) amoe Xn tito d-setd-e edd- lo Xixst .t>CJid tdst'X Qdt eLitd-e- 

wo.-i od c'~ doneLivc ^ilJ ni d-olClnoo q.tudt; '" ,;&XX8qqi3 Ljiided 

,d9riidE odd- no b«fl»qqfid dx etadw od- t.: .i. a*, Ltilif;'iq*.d d-neiioois Btd& 

sdd- 7.-od od- 8^ Ynofflid-aeJ edd- yd nwoda eeitoodd- d-onitaliD ovd- etjs ataxfT 

Xuid 'Aofjit edi aestti tj:id& abaeiaov d-otXXoqqA .beaaqqjsd taeLiioc 

reached a point of about 150 feet to the raar of the appro, oh of 
the iEusk appellee and his companion, the driver of the trucl: gave 
a signal of the appro:.oh of the truck and that the appellee and 
hia companion turned ;.nd saw the truck, and at th t tine the app- 
ellee was some t^'/o or three feet to the right of said rail and some- 
what to the right of the right hand wheel of the truck, if the line 
of travel of the trucli had been extended. That they continued in 
that position in the street, the truck gaining on the appellee until, 
the truck had reached a point some ^ or eight feet to the rear of 
the appellee, that the driver of the t .uck undertook to pass the 
appellee to the left; that he gave other signals of his presence 
and the presence of the truck and that therupon, immediately, 

without notice to the driver of the truck, the said appellee turn- 
ed or cut in front of the truck, and was thereby run by the truch 

and that the accident occ\irred from 150 to 200 feet before reaching 

the "Y" and at a place where the street was in perfect condition 

and traversable from curb to curb. Appellee contends that when he 

reached a point near the "Y" -.ifhare the paving continued only five 

or ten feet further that he necessarily started to cross over to 

the left side of the street, as it was customary for him to do and 

th-t he wa,3 struck^ ani run over by appellant's truck while it was 

running at a high and dangerous rate of speed and without giving 

any warning of its approach. 

It is contended by appellant that appellee was guilty 
of contributory negligence in unexpectedly swerving in fromt of 
appellant's truck. Appellee testified before he started to cross 
the street he looked baok and saw the auto truck at 150 feet 
behind him; that he than started to cross the street at an angle 
of 45 degrees; that after he had gone eight to ten feet he again 
looked back and saw the auto truck about 100 feet behind him and 
that he then continued to cross and hai re ched the other side and 
proceeded d ong the left curb of the street t\yelve or fifteen feet 
when he was struck. 

What constitutes contributory negligence on the p rt of 


ijcu. esIXe- .. Hoifz: I-^ &Ji* ^o I-^ng jte ^ 

-qqj3 ed& etas '^ Lct^ t3(ox/i+ -if^-v 8 in., .uanztrt- xio ixt-sqinao aid 

-sraos i^nii li^^ti j^x^a -O &d:^t% edt "^ ''- -w;t soioe a^iv sells 

oail. sdt 11 ^:io!Jii 9di J.o l9Wtw i-'Xi.-.. ira^i'i saj lo i-dsJta sxi* q& i-Jidw 

Hi Jbex/niJnco x^di &sidT .bebaetxe ne^cf had :ioui!t &d& lo levi^oij- lo 

^Cld-nu 3©Il9qc[jr 9xlt xro gninii^s :iouT:& odt ^SeQX&Si acf* ni aoi.ii.BQq i^^di 

lo X;:iai 9riJ 0* Seal td-gie lo xfe emos jrijfcoq i3 i;;Qilo£9:r iwid iotirt adt 

Qd& c£>:q- od- y-Qoiiebau :iou..i- ed& io lavixb bdt iadi ^eelleqqju ed,^ 

eorieeeiq e.ld lo alangie aed^o svi;3 ad d-^idzf icHoX add" od" oolleqq^ 

,YX3d-^i:i)©miax ^rrogx/nsdj *£!d4' t'iiJS ±>m.t &dt lo eoxraaerrq ad* baa 

-a-sssj i.9xxeciqs iDij^a sri* lyioatt sdi lo aeviiij ed;}- oi ccid-on ti/odtiw 
iioi;a;t od& Ycf^mr^ Ycfei^rf* G'^w £j«-s ^Jloi/rt^f edjJ- lo d-noil iii J-iro lo ias 

gxiido^e'x saolscf ieai COS cd- 051 moil boizuooQ inebtoc^ edi :i^d& ba£. 

aot&iijaoo j'osl^ceq . .l»9:t:fB Qdt e^edw »o,eI b.r:^ "Y" edu 

&ri nedw itiidt &i:insj'noo v£j.isqqA .cfii/o o* cfiwo cioxi oicu>e*avj3i^ ba^ 

svil YJtoo Lsjunitfioo gnlviiq eddr ertedv/ "Y" edt la&a *aioq jj bQdQ&ei 

ot i&ro S8010 o& be^^LBtB YXli^eesoQfl jxI J-j;;!^ a&d;tar;l ^J-eel n&:f io 

xjni- o.t Oj fljJLd lol Y^Binoteyo si-w ti; a^:- ^d-eexte sd* lo ©Jbia d-lal adi- 

e.iv 3-i sixxfw jloxftud- a ' i-fialleqqjj ycf i&vq aun ini; ^found-e f>£W ed *j2>dd- 

;3fijb^'-j:5 *i;odtIw i)nj5 /.eeqe lo ^c^£T eironegiiieL Jbxte ^±d ^ :^--o sninnui 

,do:otQq,a e^x lo gninxsw t^ij;^ 

Y*iitf3 8JSW oeiieqq-^ : - uJ r'aj.IXsqqaj xcf bQbnsiaoo ex il 

lo ;tiHOil ai gniviawa vXiDs^oscxsao ni soneglXgea X'^o:i^udl'L;iaQO lo 

saoTO o;f Jb9*xi3?a Qd saolscf ijslllJsa* seXXaqqA ,2fox;T:;t e' tniiXXeqqi3 

J8&1 OaX j-.2i.sX cfjs :rfCij'x* o&u£ 9dt^ Tk'BB baji iDJiCf JjoriooX sd d-esii+e adi" 

aXgnjs asi t^ Jaetci-a sdd- ssoio ' ...sie ned* ad ;f-3d;f jiaxd biUded 

atjs^s ed ;t89l aisi q& td^ie en 2 x ul ad asi'^x; tisdt iaoangal; 6:^ lo 

ha^ nld bczidad j-ael 001 Jx/ocfc >Iojja:d- od-n Jt^js afo^-'d i^siooX 

j:^fl,: o-ola ledcfo ed& b&do er L&d bus esoao 0? icx^xrlrf^noo nadi" ad Juidd' 

^:' ovXqwJ ;r98id-e sd* lo diuo JlaX sdi" giio i; Laiieoooiq 

,>rox/iJ-6 8£w ad nadw 

lo ^x q ©d* no eoxid^JtXgan x'^otudii;iaoo sstu^l&eaoo ;^;idW 

a pi., intiff in ;,ny ^iven Co-se depends on the facts and oiroianstanoes 
of the partioul.r oase and is ordinarily ,. question of fi.ct for the 
jury, V/hen appellee locked b;.. ck the second time he kne.v, if his tes- 
timony be taken as true, that the auto truck had gained fifty feet 
upon him while he was going from 8 to 13 feet and while he a3.ys that 
he saw th-.t he had plenty of roor.: to go over to the other side, he 
should have known thaj if the relative r tes of speed were maintained 
and his continued to cross at an angle of 45 degress the truck wotdd 
overtake him b^^fore he .v.^s two-thirds of the way across. He is pre- 
sumed to have l:nown th t it wag his duty to keep as close as possible 
to the cxirb on the right to How the morr, swiftly moving vehicle 
free passage on his left. He is presumed to have that it was 
the duty of the driver of the auto truck to pass on the left of an 
overtaken vehicle. Under such ciroiimstances an attempt to take a 
ch .nge and cross the street in front of the truck was certainly a 
mistake in judgment. But estimates of distances by witnesses are 
notoriously inaccurate and while ka to ., driver of a truck going 
25 miles per ho\ar, 100 feet would appear a very short distance, to 
w person riding a bicycle it might appear much longer. Were this 
question of the exercise of judgment on the part of appellee the 

only question involved we might feel constrained to say that the 

question of contributory negligence was a question fact for the jury 

and that we did not feel dls-^osed to interfere with their finding. 
Appellant earnestly insists that at the time and place 
of the accident appellee was violating -n ordin.-nce of the Village 
of East Peoria; that such violation constituted negligence per ae. 
and that such negligence is a bar to appellee's recovery in this 
suit/ It does no^ necessarily follow as a matter of law that a 
plaintiff cannot recover if at the time of the accident he was en- 
gaged in the violation of ana ordinance, St^r Brewery Co., v. H.^uch, 
323 111. 346; Johnson v. Pcil ce Livery Taxi C...b Co., xxut :^3nd Dist. 
App., opinion filed June 29, 1S30. To bar . recovery on that irrcund 
it must appear that the violL-tion of the ordinance wl..3 the proBim..te 

c-nd effeoient cause of the inj\iry. S.B.Co. , v. Hauck, supra; Johnson v, 


-33* Sid 1. , rr-.^cfifi f- loo I 9sj;.8q;q^^ AdilW .X^C 

d-,iifi^ 8v-r.B 9x1 sliffw oa'i gnxo^ &-.w ad ©Xiiiw oixrf ixoqi; 

9d iSbte led&o art* o& levo o; oj- -^oox 1o YJjasJlq Lojii ad ct-dJ vnea ©d 

Leni^i^xii. r.i ai-iK Lseqa 1:^ .-i '^dt tl i^d^ £iVoa^ syad LJxrode 

i^Xi/ow i^oiftc* Bdt aesosei . aJCsn^ n^ i^ eeoio' Qif Leiaii;J-do,o ejtd IfH^ 

-anq b1 qK .eaoioa x-'m ©J^* ^o Bt2i:di--ow* sjjw od saolacf aid iB^d'^cevo 

elcfxaeoq a^ saolo p^; qyei[ ot x^'-~ B-t^ sjbw ii cf' dt nv,on>I ©Vjid od- Lecme. 

sloldsv -^:ivoci vXt^iwa - .t v/oll. . od- Ji^xi adt ao doixo^ ed* od" 

e-i-w d-i t3d& aviott^ J Ijamx/eaTc: ei eH .d-laX eld ac aa^aeiix^ f a^- 

n£ lo d-lal arid- n: ce.z- ct ■iz:ji& otu.:: adi lo zsvlib odd" lo Y-^^^^ ^^^ 

I. e3fjsd' od" tqr.>. . Bmsjoiic doue lehaU , aloidev neaLeitasTO 

jj -^Irfix-trteo Bjcv/ :{oi;i;t fcrit "^o d"noal njt *asad"e add" eoo:ro la.. age do 

?■: ■ eeeBorr&vy ':<f ?oofii-t. •.■ci:^^3raxd"es tuQ .tadBX^Uj'- ai Qi^tBttn. 

od" ad eXldw Jbnos ej-jBOi/ xXajJOiaoJon 

od" ^soa^iBtt tiodB yasv ^ T;:3©qqja i;X:/ow d-aol OOX ^luod zsq eeXJtia ^£ 

alii:t aisW . ?! dcu.^ d-dgXa d"! sXoYOxd *> -^aibir £i08:taq -^ 

add" aaXXaqq- :iit no ;frrsia3ijir(; lo ©ejfcoiaxs add" Iq nolJeaxTp 

9d;^ d-j3dd" ^-^a od" ijonx^tr^snco I-;?.'! tdsL-n aw b^vLoval nold-aoi/p yXxxc 
Y^trt ©^* lo'i itofi'i noid-eetfi. oone-j^iXgan •"^aod"xro''iid"noo lo nold"a©i;p 

.snliifixl xtsdd" d^lw ai:©3:'x©d"iii od" iaaoqeiJb Xeal Joa bib ev; Jjsdd" irn^ 

©o.-iq ba£ emit adsf d"i5 d";:rfd" B&^s.Bni YXd'aanij;^^ Ja^XIeqqA 

e;VJlXJtY edit lo acc-ni. . _ .:2v Biivi aaXXaqqo^ ta&blooji edt lo 

ea tcacr aone-^^iXgec tad"0d"id-sxToc; rroi*..Xoiv dox/e d-Jbdi- ;^Ixoa^ J:,SJua,lo 

plrid" n.t x'^-^^"^^'^'^ e'eeXXe-r si oonaj^iXsen dcx;e i^di Lns 

3 008X1 'on aeoL d"! \d^Xij"a 

-ne B£-w ad d-nsLi ooju axld"^ lo effli:t ed:: . :isvooaa d" llXd"nijjXq 

id- ,.oO Y'oi'O^^ .^4»^8 .aorxflaliao flKx^. lo noxtiiXoxv add" ni ijagjsg 

.+ei sjsx ,.oO cfiiO ^x-oT xisvlJ ac Is<I „v noEfldoL iB^Z. .Ill SSS 

^'' -^d" no 'Cisvope^ - V^cf oT .OESX ^22 axu/X, L&Xil npinlqo t.qqA 

ad". :..;jiO'^ ■ v; sonjcnlLio sdd" lo noxd".:Xoiv edt &sdt xseqqis d"ax;in d"x 

.V xxoar^ncL ;.Qiqre ^^foixijE .v ^.oC.Sl.e .-cwlai cdcT lo aai;^o cfnsioalla in- 

P.L,& T.C.Co., supra; Lathan v.C.C.G.C.a: St, L, Ry. Co., 179 111, 
App. 384; L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co., v. P. rker, 131 111, 557, 

In thii3 case there is no question that at the time of 
the aooident appellee was violating an ordi-noe of the. Villar;e of 
East Peoria and so was guilty cf negll;],enoe per se . Gr.a5ill v,, App. Ct, 2nd Dist,, opinion filed June 39, 1930. 

The vital question in the case ia was s'moh negligence 

the proximate cause of the injiiry. An r.ot to be tho proximate cauae 

Of the injury muat be^ cause vrhioh produces the injury, but it need 

not be the sole couae nor the last or neareat cuuse. It ia the pro- 
ximate cause if it concur a with some other cause acting at the same 
time, which, in combination with it, causes the injury. For a full 
citation of the authorities on this question see Kanter v. St. L. S. 
& P. Ry., opinion filed April 31, 1930. 

Appellee's crossing the street in violation of the ordin- 
ance under, the circumstances of this case was one of the causes with- 
out which the accident could not have occurred at the time and place 

in question and under the authorities cited must therefor be ixiii to 

be the proximate cause of the accident and must therefor bar a rec- 
overy in this case. The judgemnt is therefor reversed, 

We find that at the time of the accident appellee was 
violating an ordiance of the vill.^ge of East Peoria, Illinois, cund 
th^t such violation wa ; the proxiamte cause of the injiiry and that 
appellee -.vas guilty of negligence, which contributed to cause the 

.Ill 3VI 
lo t: 

J&eefi i- 
-oaq QdS 

Ilifl .. aoi 

.a .:" . 

■ ^ , -Ttfe ,.oO.O,T £.J. 

... .8 .J ^^8^: ,qc 

leqqij tanLloDS^ ar 

^..111 noinlqo ».*ElCr LrrS .*0 .qqA ,3ft)£j 
.0 ©ift ni r:oi.+ ' ' -*iv orfT 

::r oG c: . ■ rid- ^10 oou^o ©J-iflilxoaq si 


, . ;.f^c jaoa-ion '^o .Jcj^ X edt lOfi oeuao eXoa exlJ ecf *c 

^ow*; eei/xjo isdJo siaoe dtlv Btaoaov *1 ^1 qbubo s*£iHJ exl* asaJu-30 ^Si dilv nolt^nicfeioo ni ,nclilw ,8raj 

+ai3S ©68 nold-eatrp ticfj- no eettliod&UJi eri^t "lo noliJ-iJ^J 

.OSSX ,XS XJti:qA JbeXll: noinlqo ».yH .^ 

-£ix£)::o ed* lo noxtJsXoiv ni *e©^ct-e ©xlrf" gnleeoio e'eeXIeaqA 

-rltivv eeaiTj^c srfJ 1:o ^ao erv oc esoitiitBCurotric sfl* .nebnsj eof 

w sv ii ^on i)l0oo tnet'lccjtj erfd- xfolxiw Jjl 

ciu baji not&BQUp r 

jiisLiooA, s£ij iu esi/joo 8*.offllxorrq ari^f ; 

I* b1 dTtrasgijj'Q orfT .se.eo sidrf- nl yie-y 

■dt hall s't7 

' -io n.i gniJiiXoJ 


icXii.. ^.-^oiia^iX^en iu if^Hqg e>;« ssXIeqc 


au..Ia Ln£ sail J sil;)- 
o.t ktzt 


.^TOAl iO 


i*xi-3 j^icaxljll ,^X1C& 


SECOND DISTRICT. f ^^- I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court, 

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, 

do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in 

the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of 
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty. 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

(^'H M 

u^ /t^r-/ 




iegun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of October, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hu^ared and 
twenty, within and for the Second District/of the State of 
111 ino i s : 
Present--The Hon, DO^RANCE DIBELL, Presiding- Justice. 

' i 

Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justitfe 
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Justi/e. 

U/ 219 I.A. 63 6 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on October 
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the 
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following, to-wit: 


Gen. No. 6811 
Ella ueterson, 

V8. Appeal from Peoria 

Peoria Rc-ilw-r.y CoT.peny, 

219I.A- 636 

Heard, J. 

This is an appeal from a judgment for t7,500, 
which appellee recovered against appellant in the circuit court 
of Peoria County in a suit for personal injuries alleged to have 
been sustained by appellee while in the act of alighting from one 
of appellant's street cars u-pon which she was a passenger. 

It is claimed by appellant th t the evidence does not sus- 
tain any of the allegations of negligence contained in the leclsr- 
ations. The ieolarTttion consis+ed of four countp. In the first 
coiint the negligence allege! is that while appellee, a passenger 
on appellant's street ccr, with due care ani caution for her own 
safety, was attempting to leave the car which hai stor^ped at the 
corner of Adarr.s and Walnut Street B.t the usual place for discharg- 
ing of passengers, appellant, by its servants, so carelessly, neg- 
ligently and recklessly drove ?.nd managed the car that by and 
through the negligence, mismanagement and unskillfulness of appell- 
ant's servants the car wee, suddenly and without warning st-i.rted, 
anl, suddenly, without warning, stopped with a jerk while appellee 
was standing on the platform or steps of the car attamptinp; to 
leave the same . 

In the ssconi count the negligence alleged is th^t while 
appellee was alighting from the car appellant's servj.nts suddenly 
startBi the car without warning to appellee and by re-son thereof 
appellee was thrown and injured. 

In the third count the allegation of negligance is that 
while plaintiff was in the acting of alighting the car was st-.rted 

Ilea .oT'! .nsO 

i?iioe . - • .sv 

6 88 .Ax (^ 

. tn^IiSqqA 

.1, .£)T.-;9H 
.OOa,^"; 10^ J-as .-: ai exrlT 

Jtjjoo tiJJOixo 3cfJ n . tenijsgjs i^snsvoosi ssllsqqjs rfoirfw 

evsrf o* bQ^eLIs settulai. Isaoeieq lot JJtua . at xfauoD f^iio©*^ lo 

sno sroT^ gxrld-rigil^ 1:o :^os sriit ni ©Xixfw ssllsqqi? ^d t9als.&aue nssd 

.TSTsneaa^q js esv erie rfoirfw nocfi; st-so cfssT+a a'tn.^IIoqqB lo 

-ex/a J-on asot sonsJbiva 8xl;t :J-.'r.rW J-nallaqq^ Ycf t'smxalo ei: tl 

-i£lo9Jc exfJ- xii: fcanJtiitnoo scnegilgsn Ito aaoit:i-ge£L^ 9ri.+ 'io y^-= ni£* 

taii^ 9rf* nl .^d-mroo n/o^ "io ^ ;;i:tj3Tj3lc9£ sriT .enoi^Ji; 

i8gn9e8J3q £ ,99Xl9qqB eltdv tsrft et ta-^ells eocis-gil-geci ©rft ;J-m;oc 

nv/c isrf 10^ noitiJ".o £ii£ 9i£0 9jj£ r'- d t99T*a a'd-nxilleqcr^ no 

edi- S3 £>eqro;te f-M dolxfv; ij30 grf* 9VjS9I ot gn.:tqm9d-;t£ b^sw ^yi-g'iija 

-3i.=rfo3if) Tiol 90£lq Icjjsjj 3rf* :fn tgg'rd"? iJ-i/nXjeW ta£ am^tA lo ignioo 

-^en ,vIa89l9T30 oa ,etn-3V^9B atJ: ^cT ^tn:^Ll^qqs ,ei3gn9aaj3q lo gnl 

t bs'gsnsia tnc gvoit Y-^s^elafoai tn^ \Lfas-gi.L 

'llQqqs' to sssnljjlIIiiBnx; tni; j-nemsg.^nsma im ^sonegilgan arit riajjoirid" 

,fce- \-jorftlw La." Y-f^^^s^fc^a ,3.sw tc^so edt sta^vzea s'&a^ 

ee.;. - slitfw iiQl ,: ligqqod'a <gfrlnT£w tyod^+xw ^^inebtue ^tajs 

.'liJqirot o mTo'i:!" ^Iq edt no g^-ttniEj-a a£w 

• am. '8 ^ili 9V^i9l 
alJtrfw &£ti& Bi be-^eliJi aonegllssn 9x1* Jnuoo Inooea arft nl 
Yln9.tx.u9 a*n.svT98 ' o 9riJ moi^ gaitifgil^ a-sw 99XXeqq£ 

^oeiBdt noa'"9T y- ,:^nxni5w iisod&trr a.'.-o edt ^t&i^ie 

.fcsTX/rnx fcnjB nwoTrit bj3W 99XX9qqj5 
^ ^rf* ei ©ona^lXggn lo .■ sri* cfnjjoo brtdi srid' nl 

teti.+e a-?! ^nltfrfgiiJB ^o snJttoB erft al a^w t^X:fni.':Xq aXirfw 

without notice to appellee causing the car to ;ierk cnl by reason 
thereof pli-intiff was thrown. 

In the fourth count it is allege! th-.t while appellee was 
about to alight from the Oc.r the c"r wc-b caused to be sullenly and 
violently started and by reason thereof plaintiff was thrown and 

In actions of this cbare.cter it is only necessary to allege 
and prove three things; (l) facts showing the existence of a duty 
on the part of the defendant to exercise c; to protect the plain- 
tiff from the injxiry of v/hich he complains; (3) the failure of the 
defendant to perform that duty; and (3) an injury to plaintiff re- 
sulting from such failure. N. S. C. Co. v. Fromm, 286 111. 354; 
Bahr v. N. S. D. Co., 334 111. 101. These three elements constitute 
the gist of the declaration and must be met by proof strictly con- 
forming thereto. 

There was evidence tending to show that the car stopped at 
the corner of Adi-ms and Walnut streets, that appellee then left her 
place in the car, went to the back platform, took hold of the ha.nd 
rail with her right hand, put her right foot on the first step below 
the vestibule floor of the car and was in the act of taking her left 
foot clear from the floor of the vestibule to the step, when without 
any warning, th^ car started up slowly in the usual manner of start- 
ing and went from six to t^/eive feet with her in that position when 
it suddenly stopped with a jerk wrenching and twisting appellee* s 
body and causing a dislocation of her right knee. 

The three elements above mentioned were averred in the first 
cciint of the declaration and theeviience above set forth strictly con- 
formed to, and if the jury believe 1 it, proved, these three essential 
elements of said count. 

Appellant contends that appellee was guilty of contributory 
negligence in rem; ining in the position in which she was. It is 
only claimed that she rem:.ined in this position while the car trav- 
elled frorr six to twelve feet. It was a question o^ fact for the 
jury to determine from all the circumstances r;hether or not appellee 
exercised ordinary care for her own safety and we cannot say that 


e-^si'^ i-:? vr-2asoaxi Aflfto c r;irft to anoiito^ nl 

v-^.: onLV■^^i:xe ^ :' ' '^nlriO.-*:: (l) iagnirf;? 99irf* svoiq i)n^ 

- _ „ a^Jbnslsfc arf* ^o tiisq erf* no 

8ri.t "o -Tij.', , ., ; .liislqffioc erf rfolrfw lo \:iui;ni: 3ii;f noal llit 

-91 'lij-crrl n. (s) Ln^ j^tjui; JM* mrto'iisq o* tn£bas'i.9b 

j^5£ .III S2S ,-.TC7 . . oO .0 .5 •T'f .biuL£.^\ rfoi/e moi^ gniJIua 

s^utii-Bnoo a;tnerrtsX9 eairit sssriT .101 .S ,.oO .0 .8 .H .v irfiia 

-noc vltoiiJe looiq yd Jem scf tauia bas aot&st^Ioet ecit to itaJtg sriJ 

.o:f3i8ri;t gnicmol 
;t-; t3'"c'c*8 T. -'. ■ ot -gatbaet QoasbtvQ b/jp) sisrfT 

TP, .^seitr^ :^0frXj6W fsrt^ eausijA ^o isnioo srft 

iin.-f: "^ ot J-nsw »i^o arid' nx aojslq 

woIscT -s"^:- ~^ii :t©: . ... ii.ori :f-rigii lerf rf:''iw Xl^si 

■t-r - "nc- "-D 6ri;t lo rooL^ eluriitasv srfj- 

■"no-f-^i" T-'r ,Te+E 9r'+ Dt : o looll 9rit moi^ i^slo tool 

- : Is qu b3&i.:ia iso sri.t tgnini^w yns 

n:^ iil Tsrf -'x avisr:^ ct xxa rcioil cfrrsw tnjs gni 

8*5sll8crq3 :2nit3irrt [ orr'-^TVT ■ ^ . .itiw isqqota ylnatfci/e d'i 

. -617 noltJSooXaxi; ^ gniax/^o tn^, ytocf 

" bsiiev£ S19W tsrrc^tnrsrr; svoc'.: ':^iT^it!9X9 Q'3ici& 9riT 

•'rtotT+? -■'^fio'^ :^?-5 9^- :.qtf£islo9b erf* 'lo touoo 

- .. I9cf ^tsjl edt' tl bos ^ot tgniiol 

.j-fluoo Li^a lo ad-n9m9X9 

YTo :;■ ■'':■ ~c:- ~- 't ?,tn9fr:oo tnjXXoqqA 

nl gnxni -;m9i at eoas'gil^aa 

srfj to' vl 9vX9V'.t oJ xie moil b©Xl9 

seXXr.: XXjs moil snimtectsi: ot yiuj; 

d-.C' 3 fmo isii Tol 9i£0 YisniLio £i9aXoT9xe 

the jury were not justified by the evidence in finding that she iid 
exercise such care. 

Appellant claims th=t the verdict was contrar^' to the weight 
of the evidence. While there is some conflicting evidence in the case 
there was evidence sufficient to sust^.in theverdict if thejury believ- 
ed appellee and her witnesses. This they evidently did. Weighing the 
evidence is peculiarly the province of the jury and we would no"^ be 
justified in setting aside their fxniin?r in tiie case. 

It is assigned for error th. t the court erred in allowing 
appellee's witness. Dr. Farnum, to testify th-.t he believed that the 
likelihood was th- t appellee would h ve some permanent manifestations. 
Dr. Fsrnum, after testifying as to appellee's condition was asked this 
question; "Have you an opinion as to whether or not this condition is 
a permanent one?" Appellant objected that no foundation had been laid 
and as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and calling for a con- 
clusion. The objection was overrulled. The witness answered: "I 
would have you bear in mind that I saw this patient but once and it 
is a difficult matter for any physician to use the v:ord 'permanency," 
after a single examination. In my judgment, however — ". Here the 
witness was interrupted and was aksed the question: "What is your 
opinion?" The defendant objected because no foundation had been laid 
:.nd as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. The court then said: 
"Objection overrulled. He may answer with reference to the probable 
future consequences." Appellant's coiinsel then objected as followat 
"We object as the probable consequences are too remote and not suf- 
ficient or definite enough to render the testimony competent. Test- 
imony of probable results is not competent. "The objection was over- 
ruled and the witness answered: "Then I would say, as I said before, 

that the matter of describing 'permanency* from a single examination 
is a difficult matter. I Baw_^l^iB woman but once. I believe that the 

likelihood is that she will have some permanent manifestations." Ap- 

pellant^B counsel then objected to the answer as not competent, toe 

remote and speculative and moved the answer be stricken. The motion 

was overruled. The evidence was not competent and should have been 


saeo 9dt ni ecaai 
-veiXocf ^flx;^« • ■■ 

aH-" •'.nr^ ('■'>■ r.."' 


■ ei 

a 1x1+ bQ-ieL ....;... ' 

-ncc ... ..... ^: ;. --.. 

I" Ti:9T*)W5fl*= eaaatt .. , 
Ji tn.-: eoiT'- 'r-.r f .a? i.f .?•':; ^lif"'- 

^sLf'r ^bfl 6i5'" ^lul ar. 
.ai^o x(ou3 seIoisxs 


••n9loiT:!tjja sonstiva siw'eisrl^ 

I', i-lluosq ai sonsLive 
..:,..: -, . .i:i>tt9e fll Jb9i1:l:f3iJQ 

,....:..._.. .-. ,3ascTfiw a*99ir9qq£ 
row ssXIsqqjs rt rlj- a.s7T fiborfiXs^IlI 

::9qqA "feno trreiusmiaq js 

. . ■ ^xjt t^Tistsqinoonl a^ trijs 

■eirjj^'iovo p.i.7.' nai:d'08j;efo ©rfT .noxejjio 
:;:x i59Cf yo^ avjsil Jbli/ow 

" ,Y0XieiiBirT9q' .. . . n&tote'^dq xaa tot iQ&&sm tli/oi^^ll) £ si 

9d& SI-?:" ." — rtev9Y.'0£l ,:^n^.nv^jJ••■ ^ .ji rrT ..ffo:-:f£jrrlm£7:© signia £ ao3'^£ 

•;i/ov ■ .:■ ;■ ■','"' Tfiox^asL'; 3^qjjiT9*nl a-sw eeen*iw 

. . iTUO?: on SBurr^ii'-. bQ&oerrSo tasr-taslst srfT "Tnolniqo 

rfcijsB n^rlt ^tloo =£fT ."•^•r'^:? • x'-i'Ii-^'iii ,:fii8;tecTmo£)rti ai'"l)ajG/ 

eicT-sdOTq en: . ;. _ „ . _. ^ .... ... .telLuiiavo noid-osQcfO" 

rawoIXol £jc tsifosccfo nsd* Iseassoo s^i-aslIsqqA ".adonaupsenoo 9iufjj"i 

-■^08 :foa has 9:^ora^1 ooJ ^.i,-, £3r:n?ij rcuToo 9X(^jscfotq sxfct" bjS toe^do aW" 

-t?-r .:^n9*eqmoo y^o'^*'^^ - - ot xfgi/ons 9*ini^6t lo tnsiol^ 

- .evo a/;w noi^osr;cro srIT , tsq.'noo *on ai atXuBST Blcfjscfonq lo Y^oml 

^siol&d bisB I .T nsrfT" rtsTawan^s saentlw srftf. tn£ tsXi/i 

rxoi J-£nim£xe sir ' .:.i-iT.9q' gnxcfxioast' ^p TSJ^^rn 9if;f *£riJ 

)ri:f ti^di- svsi: i|;jwfi8 I .iai-;t^ai cfXyolllii) a ai 

-rjA ".sn. vlxisin tnexr^m-Ts cv/^rf XXlw arfe t.sxf:^ ai f)ooriiX©3flX 


oot ,*n9*9q!BOo foR B-B ter- oc^ i-aJcsQcfo nedcf Xsam/oo a'*naXX9q 

noitorft erfT ,a9:iot-. aroni bn£ svitaXjJoaqe bn^s stoaset 

xies'l -n'-3xf fcXjJO asJ-Qqmoc ioa asv soaefciva srfT .fcilxJiiavo a^w 


stricken out. 

Here surmise or conjecture c^xnnot be reg-5.riei ar proof of 
future coniition. Fxpert witnesses c?-n only r:ive their opinion as to 
future consequences that are shown to be rep.sonably to ensue. 
17 Cye 336; C. C. Ry. Co. v. Henry, 63 Ii" . 142; Lyons V. C. C. Ry. 
Co., 35Q 111. 75; Kimbrough v. C. C. Ry. Co. 273 111. 73; Alm-.nn v. 
C. C. T. Co., 343 111. 363; Li^uth v. C N. T. C@. 244 111. 244; Filer 
V. Peoria Ry. Co. 200 App. 111. 4S7; Ehrharit v. Conn. Fire Ins. Co. 
111. App. 3ni Dist. opinion filed June 29, 1920/ ^e lo not, however, 
consiier this error reversible ae Drs. Levitin ani KE^nnopel both 
testifiei to the perijiancy of some of appellee's ailments and there 
was no evidence offered to the contrary by appellant. 

It is claimed that the damages are excessive. Appellee at 
the time of the accident wj.g about 35 ye'.rs of -ige rni h- 1 enjoyed 
good health prior there to. Witnefiser- ifor both ai-^pellee ani apr^ellant 
testify that by the accident appellee's right knee was dislocated. 
This dislocation was pulled back into -^Ir ce by two rren st the scene of 
the accident. Dr. Kannapel, her attending nhysicirn, testifiei that 
in the year and a half between the accident ani the ^rial he had call- 
ed upon appellee professionally 335 or 330 times, ani that on each 
of these occasious he saw her, talked with her ani examined her; that 
she had pain in the limb. There is evidence th-^t there was a rupture 
or breaking of the spinal arteriea along appellee's spin- 1 cori, de- 
stroying the nerve tissues and that this wc s brought about by :■. sudden 
jerk or twisting of the bc4'; thst as a result thereof she has a par- 
tial paresis of certain flexor muscles of the forearm ani hand; that 
she ha? cert in areas ofanesthesia, that the grasping ability of her 
right hand was greatly decre.-sed in corr.parison with her left; that 
there was a paralysis of the center of urination in the ST)inal cord 
BO that she could not hold her urine and urine would dribble from 
her; that she was unable to hold her neck in an upright position with- 
out wearing a support; that she suffered excrutatinrr pain and that this 


•io loo'i 

tuo cts:ioit& 


:r sea 

.) .0 


. riX .III 

: noo 
iv9 on e£v 



Tis©^ eri* xii: 

'l deXIsqq.'j noqu bo 

.0 sasrit io 

i^q tiSff -i-; 

>fliij391Cr TO 

jVTsn eri;t ani^^c 

i*a*wir 10 Jlasj; 



tXi/oo axis .^jsxi:f oa 

condition was permanent. If these conditions existed as the result 
of appellant's negligence and the jury evidently found they dil, we 
cannot say that the veriict is excessive. 
The judgment is c.f firmed. 

tiueoz ^cit ajs fcateixs a^ 
aw .fcli 

STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) ^ . , . „ ^ 

SECOND DISTRICT. f I. ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof. 

do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in 

the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of 
said xA.ppellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty. 


Clerk of the Appellate Court. 




Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of October, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine l^i^ndred and 

twenty, within and for the Second District of the State of 


Illinois: > / 

\ / 

Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Jus t i ce . 
Hon.ljJOHN M. NIEHAUS, Ju0ice. 
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Justice. 
CURT S.,,AYERS, Sherl/f 



BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on October 
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the 
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following, to-wi t : 

Tillman Anderson, by 
Christopher Anderson, 
his next friend, 

• Appellee, 
V3, Appeal from Grundy 

Thomas T. Fletcher, 


2191A. 336 

Hec.rd, J. 

In Aurust 1914, one R. F. Booth, being the 
o.-mer of a farm in Kendall coiinty, known in the evidence as the 
Miirley farm, entered into .. written oontr.ot .ith appellant to 
sell the same to him, posaeaaion of the premises and deed to be 
given Marii 1, 1915, In the fall of 1914 Elias Knudson, as tenant 
of appellant, did some fall ,7ork on the premises and on March 1, 
1915, moved on ani took possession of the same, and remained there 
on an tenant of appellant until .after March 33, 1918. Subsequently 
to entering into, the contract a dispute arose between Booth -:nd 
appellant as to the niiraber of a ores in the farm ani as to the 
amo\int of the purch-^ae price. On June 35, 1915, Booth filed in 
the circuit court ^ bill against ap-ellant for the specific per- 
formance of the contr ..ct .vhich bill he -..f tervrards dismissed. Knuison, a 
as appelli-nt's tenant ./orked the farm in 1915, 1916, .nd 1917, deliv- 
ering to appellant one-h If of the crops as rent, but up to Mi.rch 33, 
1918, appellant ha i not rojeivei a deed for the f rm» 

On the last mentioned day Booth appellee, Tillm.n Ander- 
son, whom Booth had hired for the pixrpose, v/ent with team and 
WL.3;on to the Murley farm, j^nd after learnin.^: from the tenant where 
the oats, which had been rown on the premises the preceedin^ year, 
were took these lo^^ds away in the wa;on, one in the mornin -nd two 
after dinner, deliverin them to a nearby elevator, 


yljxiuaO moil X->&qqA 




8 8£./,lexS 

^ -■- ^^ .L ,L-ixi9H 

8£[j- rnxycf ^rij-ooS .'5 .H ano ^jMei d'ax;;fixrA nl 
edi ; . 8onai)Jtv9 od;f at avon^ tX&OJJOO IljabnsS nl aiijs'l ii lo rtonv/o 

80 o" noxReeaeoq titijtif o^ DffljSB sxlJ" II»e 

d-nijns^t xia ^Xei : srft nl ,5X91 »X rfacxiM nevlg 

,X ££oa^ no ba-^^ Beeimdiq arid- no aiiov.- XXjsI eraoe iDiJu ,;tr[*5XXeqq£ lo 

;f^ooa n 

-'i©q ox 'tie 90 

xmeiij f 
-viI©jD jVX 

noxseoeaoq ^ooJ in^^ no Levom »6X8X 

r rl Cxd-nu J-n-jXXeqq..; 1o taj^aaif b-h no 

i'OJaicfnoo Qd& oiat -Qnlioina oi 

to iticfintrn axl* o* ea^ d-noXXaqqiJ 

amjL nO .soiiq QB^^doiuq ^dt 'io iasjotus 

o'l i-n^I toxroo :fi0cixo exIJ 

^^xf XXicf doXxl^ Jo-sUnoc eriJ lo soniMtiol 

DjL ni it beTirov. ia^^nt^:} e' J'nr.XXeqqjs 8£ 

f-eno tnjaXXsqqj: o* gniis 

^ ■:! .:i vtxixiXXeqqii »8XeX 

.oaotSaem itBJsX add- nO 

. 380qiuq 6xft aol Jbf>a2il biiri diooB. moifTs ^noe 

. •ii:'i YoXa^lI <id& o& no^-ijw 

ad;}- no nwoi nsed L^id doldv- taJ-jJO sdd- 

odd- njt YiiTfB ei'JiOX seed* jfoocf ©new 

Ycf:t^©n .' 0? casd.t niisviXeij jaennlL tstlsi 

Appellant learning thc^t the oats were being removed and taken to 
the elevator by Booth and appellee v/ent to Yorkville, the county- 
seat, and after talking about the matter with CI .renoe Williams, 
who waa then Judge of the County ooiK-t, but not ... licensed attorn- 
ey, went with him to. the office of u Police Magistrate of Yorkville, 
where appellant swore out a warrant for appellee's arrest, charging 
him with larceny of the oats in question. Appellee was arrested by 
th6 Sheriff, bound over to the jury by the Police M^tgistrate 
and by the gr;^nd jury indicted for the larcey of the oats. A nolle 
•prosequi was entered to the indictment by the st-te's attorney. 
Thereupon, appellee, by Christopher Anderson, his father, as next 
friend, brought suit for malicious prosecution against appellant. A 
trial resulted in a verdict for appellee for the sume of OlO,000« 
Upon motion for new trial appell&e remitted $3500,00 and thereupon 
the court rendered judgment for $7,500 in favor of appellee against 
appellant, from which judgment appellant had perfected hia appeal. 

It is contended by appellant that the judgment is manifest- 
ly excesaive. 

Appellee at the time in question was 18 years of age liv- 
ing with and oorking for his father a few miles from the M\irley 
farm. He was familiar with the controversy bet.7een Booth and app- concerning the farm. He kne. that appellant hai contr .cted 
to buy the farm and that Knudson as appell^-nt's tenant, had taken 
possession on March 1, 1915, and had harvested for appellant the 
crops for the years 1915-16 L.n i 17. Before startinj^ to get the 
oats on the day in question his father had told them he would bet 
they would not get many o ts, that appellant would stop them. While 
not guilty of larcenr he was guilty of assisting in taking and sell- 
ing the property of another without any warrant of law. He was not 
confined in jail, and w^s only in the custody of the sheriff for a 
few hours. No special ciroumstance of publicity, shame or hiomil- 
iation are shown in ag.grevation of appellee's dami-ges. Hs testified 


■^d-mjo; '^ d&ooQ. Y<-' -i^s ed^ 

^Qlli; iJ oi- Mill ri*lw tnew j^® 

•gtii-gr^dc ' .^t i-n^*:': o aaowe *nii,IJt©qq^ aieriw 

V'cf i»ed-ae^ .c.otiBeisp ai eJ-.'o sxl* lo xahotaL dilv atd 

^&r,iiel^^M &oiIo<i edi Ycf ^i^^'' ^^''''O iJaiJOcr ^lli^edB dd* 

oI.:or , xot i>33'ciiJcinJ; X'^t ijfl-'T;^ yrf* yd Ln£ 

.xeaio:fjB 8*9*- toxi»nJ: L;f;~&*ne tu v Jjjpeeoig 

oXo. axlj-ja'j eJbi ,noa:cax>aA ^texiqo.+ airmO -^cf ,8©II©qc-;^ ^^oqi/&1eIf^ 

L ,ta suoioiLjm rot ttife id'gsjond ^baQlil 

,0' o majse eifJJ" loi ©eXIs- j^cibiev .. at loi JUteei" 

iid- Twan aol nox^toni noqU 
jpni.-:,^.. s . .s:-:').is 'to %ov£t at OO^tT'i^ aoi taem;^Lul tjB'i9ijt:si titsoo ed;t 
.Il.c- :r .. eid iJB&oa'iieq Jbaxf ^tniilleqqw tixep^Lr/i; doidw atoil »*a*iXJ;eqq/i 
-o2 3ljfcfl*;ra el !tii©iB§i)tr(; sdt tjaitt j-flAsXIoqqjj Y<^ £)»iJ^^^t^oc si *! 

•evieeeoxe yl 
-vil £>^ lo s-i«8Y 8X sj:w noxlesap ni smit «4# *-« eeXXsqqA 

'iQlii.M &di JuO-x. 3d[*i3^ £JLd 10^ goljficw Lnii d*Jtw gnJt 

-qqij ba^ d&QoQ. s:&Q\yf&d •^ai^voi^noo cx£* ricfiv. i-ilim^l b^w aH ^moijl 
b»tQ^:'i&Ttoo hod ta.^ .-I'd &E .taiB'x exIJ ■^ataiaoaoo inaLle 

edJ ia..i.ioqr, .o.^GJI ^X xloiiJi hq noieeeeaoq 

•^■i" ni*i^;Je aaole aX-ciX^X 81*3©^ &di rol Bqoio 

*scf bL ;-,jii aoiJeac jj a£[j ao Bt^o 

-XXee Dtm ^nlafjs* ni §aiJBi;pB*!3 lo '•fjXiiis {©on^X lo ■\j;JXlijg ton 

tea a.:v eH ,v»jjX lo iaaxisyi lyii', J-irori*jtv; loii^on-: lo Yi-ti:&qoa:q ejlcf gai 

-It.'jrija '-0 £ist..£le (Y^iO-iXcfuq lo ftoao jcoaqa ol .Euuod w^l 

Jbsilltae* eiH . e as^^m-:. e'eelleqqjs !:• noic»-f-.voti;33x: ni rcwode «':t-e floi*-^;! 

thut immediLLtely ;a.fter hia arrest he felt ^eak and later was 
ashamed to meet people a,ni tha-t the case worried him. The 
sheriff testified that when he told appellee that he had a ivar- 
rant for him appellee smiled and l;.ughed. Aopellee was put to 
aix expense of ^250 in defending himself on the larceny charge and 
lost five days on account of the o:.3e in attending hearings and 
court and spent four or five days in preparin his defense. 

Ylhen verdict is so flagrantly exces iive as to be only 
accounted for on the grounds of prejudice, passion or misconcep- 
tion of the c>ise, a remitteur does not remove the prejudice, pas- 
sion or misGonc: ption, -a such elements may have entered into the 
finding of. other facts important to the issue itself. Lowenthal 
vs. Strong, 90 111. 74. 

Under the facts of this case we regard the judgment of 
$75©© so grossly excessive as to require a reversal of the jud^ 
ment. Some other alleged errors are argued by appellant in his 
briefs and arguments, but as ibost of these questions will prob- 
ably not arise upon ^nother t±±al and as appellant's counsel upon 
the motion for new tri..l when the trial judge said to him "I 
would be delighted and plecised if you have amething on v/hich you 
rely for reversal*, if you .yould let me know what it is, and maybe 
I would change my mind", did not see fit to present these questions 
we do not deem it neoesaary to discuss then;i. 

The judgment is reversed a d the cause remanded. 


;..-, - sanaqxe rt- 

l svll *aoI 

. .,j o , (K .^ ;;nooeJLra lo nole 

.jIII Oe t3noi3-8 .EV 

^itC'^ Tiff 7-1}tn'J 

-JO.'p Bteuj J.' troiii a-: tucf ,Efno:^irpTs:, tn^^ alsl^- 

.-..iw I... lit wsn lOi noUoa ed& 
.jc-- rfri-fr -ro -rriiij-^rai .. j: ;.. ..Jxrow 

irr-' 9« r^BS. .J!x.a level lo^ "^lei 

assoexi cfl jnesi J-on oii 9W 


SECOND DISTRICT. | ^^- J, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court, 

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, 
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in 
the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affi.x the seal of 
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twent}'. 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 





Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the mfth day of October, 
in the V^ar of our Lord one thousand n/ne hundred and 
twenty, within and for the Second Di^rict of the State of 
111 ino i s : 

Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pris iding Just i ce 
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, jistice. 
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Jjtstice 
CURT Sv AYERS, Sher/ff. 2X9 -*A« O O O 

BE IT REMEMBEREO^hat afterwards, to-wit: on October 
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the 
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following, to-wit : 


Gen. No. 6838, 

John A. Rusaell, 

vs. Appe:il from Kane, 

Bo-rd of EducL-tion of District 
Nxanib.r 87 of County, Illinois, 


2191.^- 6^^ 

He: rd, J. 

This is -n appeal from a judgment for $7,500,00, 
rendered by the circuit court of K:^.ne county in favor of appellee 
o-gainst appellant for solicitors fees for service rendered in partition 
suit entitled Mercy Hospit 1, et al, vs. Board of Educ tion of District 
No. 87 of Kane County, Illinois, et al, neard in the Superior Court of 
Cook Co^onty and taken b- appeal to the Supreme Court, whose opinion 
therein is found in '.'o. 281, p . ge 582, to which opinion reference is 
made for :. statement of the questions of law and fact therein involved. 

There was no express contract between the p rti'JS c.s to the 
amount to be paid appellee for solicitors fees and the Witnesses in be- 
half of appellee in addition to himself were four lawyers of County, 
wh^ S ve their opinions as to the usual and customary charged for such 
legal services as appellee performed, such opinions r.nginj from $7,000 
to $10,500. Appellant offered no evidence and rer^uested no instructions. 

At the request of appellee the court gave the jury the follow- 
ing instruction: "The jury are instructed to the case L.nd decide it 
according to yoxir sworn consciences, remembering you to find a ver« 
dijt according to the testimony given you in the caGo. You -re net to 
indulge in su ositions upon which no evilence h..s been ^-iven or offered. 
You h .ve no ri'^ht to trust you own opinion in the c se, unsupported by 
proof. Jurors no ri-ht to indulge in surmises and conjeot'ja-es on 
subjects cone rning which no evidence h.- b.en offered. They are bound 
to take the testimony for their sole guide." 


,8S88 .oM .nsO 

tllaeBi/fi .A nrloL 





tnecigLi/i; .s rao' 

- tlqeoH TfOTaM baXlitna i-itra 
n:tfoO aas'S. lo 78 ,oM 
noifliqo esorlw ^t1uoO smeiqxrS offJ o^f L^eqq^i -cf itc . y^^jjoO i^ooO 

arBbaei soivx 
oju-i)3 xo biaoh 

Bs. sonaasls'i noin 
8n;t or 


i&noid-c.ijii'^.nJ: ore l 

:.oi siiir Y^f 

lo ae^ 


i.rir'o'i ai nleiQjlt 

^.y LJtjuq od ot iauotaji 

J- noitiLLjs al selXsqqis lo IXiiri 

■^ftoxnlqo itodt ev^^g oriw 

; eoolvaoB XjsgeX 

on Lei&llo ^ttiiXXeqqA .OOetOX$ oi 

sdT" :nol;foira;}-BnJt gni 

onsioenoc mo we 'jjj-oy o* gniLaoc 

;t 0* gnlliooofl *l 

noij-jceo ua ni og^^^ 

^eua* oi- id-Qii oa ©v^ixl r 

>".v..rf sioiisJj .loo 

MVi j^flinifjonoo eJoaf;. 

It ia clL^imed by appellant that aa all of o.ppellee'g testimony 
as to the value of the.oervicea w:.s opinion merely, that this instruct- 
ion required the jury to make ■-. finding in aocoriunce with such toat- 
imcny and elimin.tod the jurors ovm independent knowledge, experience 
..nd opiniona and was therefore error. 

It has been frequently held that in fixing attorneys feea 
courts are not neoess^.rily governed by the opinions of attorneys ..s 
to the value of such 'servioea, but that th^:; court should exercise its 
own judgment b;-sed on its knowledge and experience in such matters. 
Goodwillie v. Milliman, 56 111. 533; Metheny v. Bohn, 164 111. 495; 
McMannery v. C. D. & V. R. R. Co., 167 111. 497; Lee v. Lon^.x, 319 
111. ^18; Beineke v. Si.nitary Oist. ^60 111. 380; Gentleman v. S nit- 
sry Dist. 360 111. 317; People v. Gilbert, 363 111. 85. The reason for 
this holding is as stated in Goodwille v. Milliman, aupra, that the 
chancellor "has the reciuisite skill ...nd knowledge to form some idea 
us to *hv t ia fair ..nd re; .sonable compensation, " In f .ct the 
ellor ia very frequently in much better position to form ..n expert 
opinion as to the reasonable value of the services than the witnesses 
testifying as experts. This reason does not, howev-r, apply to a 
juror yiho h^s not had th; requeisite knowledge and experience to 
forr; an expert opinion. He v/culd not be allowed to testify to hia 
opinion as a v/itii^as, for the reason tha' the la.v hold him to be in- 
competent to form an opinion. The juror is sworn to decide the c .se 
a, cording to the evidence and while it ia unquestionably the duty of 
-~ jinror to test the truth and wieght of the testimony of the witnesses 
in the light of the juror's experience, observation and reflection and 
to consider the matian Motives which influence mankind, yet this 
duty should not ^ive him the right to violate his oath and sub- 
stitute for the sworn evi.ien-:e hia unsworn opinion ./hich the 1-w 
s- ys he is not competent to form. While this insturction ia inL.c- 
c^lrate in some of its terras we do not consider its giving reversible 

It ia contended that the ooiort erred in permitting the 
opinion witnesses to testify regarding the usual and customary charges 


Ynofiiir ■:<:*■ e'sel : - 
-cf ',.v:r--:ai eldd tbii:f .■,•'.:.'; 

aesl e-janiott.. ; ni 
ed^i seiuisxe tl' 

GIc' ^x-no.. . 

-3-lXl. : , 

10 J no . . ' 

■:.©i:)i emoe mao: 

-> ot 

-rrl ©d ot fflirf Llorf \?ijX 3d 
^^ X&ub sritf 
ba.- no 

.1 nol;^orar" 


olviseed* lo . .::^ oJ e 

ri mi 
J/ iiijs exioinlqo he. 

caooen ton 6Xti sJ-rmoc 
aoivse-e ifcue io sxrlxv ad J c 

. ;.oiBi IXxH .V otLLlvbooQ 

. e^^aniaa i8£S , '.I 

;"^I£ .III Oas .creia y'- 

nlLIod alil* 

di Bi\d* loIXeoiiijl; 


.acfieqxL L^^liB^t 

tscTpST: J odw no It;' 

. oirrlcto Jnscrxe n^s .ttio^ 


•'• j-notsqmoc 


- lOTi/i; . 

isfX aK:f ni 

. aitas 9£f* asLienoo o:f 

jn bluo'dB "^iis. 

■■•Oil ai cxl BY ■■ 

emoB at o&Bits: 


: di 

for such aervioea aa were perforKed by appellef , //ithout recjuiring 
such .vitne'rjes to bci.3e their opinions upon U3u.-1 ch:.rges betv;een 
p.jcties competent to contr..ct. The questions to ;.-ppellee's .vit- 
neases should huve been so limited. R.ynold v, McMilL.n, 63 111,43; 
McMannery v. C. D. & V. R. R., supra; Gentlem, n v. S.-nit^ry Dist, 
supn.; People v. Gilbert, supra, but this objection w.. 3 not raised 
without any objection vitiatever and appellant thereiTore cannot raise 
the question here« 

It is contended by appellant that the .judgement is exoe--i,ive. 

It is not necessary for the purpose of this opinion to t.-te 
in detail the p.^ticular services rendered appellant by appellee. The 
eviience shows that appelle.; is an attorney of ability and high stand- 
ing; th;-t the litigation covered a period of nearly three years; that 
appellee devoted services, ..mounting in the a^^^regi.r to three mont. 3, 
to the litigation; thatt./o weeks of this tiiiie vv;.s consumed in a trip 
entitled to the income form !jl50,000 worth of property. 

It is cl: imed by ;.ppellant that as the actual time devoted 
by appell- e to a;opell::vnt 'a interests was only three months than an 
allowance of $7,500 would be the equivalent to L.n inGor;:e fron profess- 
ional services of ^"30,000 per annum and for that reason the judgment 
is excessive. It does not neoess rily fo\'-0'/i that an attorneys earn- 
ings for a year are four times what they are for a given three montha, 
thereof, as even a first-class lawyer does not have a first-clas.s 
case every day. Even if it lid so follovv, when we consider the rauoh 
greater eurninga of fuaany men in other avocations, requiring leaa 
preparation, skill and ;.bility, we can see no good re. .-;on .vhy first- 
oLass lawyer should not h^ve a rross i-nnu 1 income of ^30,000 from his 
profession if the services he renders his clients are re.vsonably »ortli 
such . sum. 

It is contended that the allowance of such a sum for an at- 
torney's services is out of all proportion ^0 the salaries paid to the 
judges of the circuit court. This is \xnque:stionably true, but it ia 
a matter of common knowledge that attorneys fees in general are .-.t pres- 
ent time out of ..11 proportion to the circuit judges salaries. In the 



,ncMvi/ dcu8 

, .V iioaajMoU 

,eiQd xioid'aojjjj add- 

•jq-'i Yd" i-aJjXisi'floo si d'l 

jfl ;^on si il 

:.z>-j. e&oxvicfc i^jIi/oirf'T-.q edJ Xi/jd"si:) ni 

- lieqqa isdi «wodB soneLxvs 

j*>u,j' 4a^j^&Y &i}%fii \(i'i-.*ii: xo i)Oi:ui>', > ijs%\j-voo aot&j^tilL Qxlt itxid^ ;sni 

tseoivaea i.>9&QVhL selleqq^ 
qx'^; .. ai Leifiuejiiv owd-^J-odd" inoi*i53i4:,i-C, ©xIJ o;t 

..::... OOO^OciX* iuzol eaiooni Qdt oi iQltlfae 

bot.y omii;Io el ifl 

^•nel^iviwp© sxft ec .;',yC4T^ to eoniiwollis 

: OOUtO . 5 0XV188 Ijofioi 

"~©fe6 iOxvj 

fcC?x liiaiup© 


-jii n..: 


ton asOi. .'I .sviaaeoxs el 

ijBs^j <£ aol.Bsnx 

•oxj asY -:o«..t8ai± ij nsve bj^ jAoeiarit 

. Jo -^caev© eeao 
L rxsxn Y^'^^' •io againi-'je ist^ieag 
jjii. Ili-'^E jnoi^tiiixsqoiq 
■' . -''OdB aeijwjsl aeBSh 

xviae ad* "ii noiaaeloiq 
•flijje *i doxxs 

q XXjb io ;ft/o ei eeoxviee a'^enio? 
' 0.0X0 tteQL': . ?iroaio 8d* 'io es^Li/t 

i.eXi*on.^ flOfiiraoo lo 'lai'tijin jb 
aeixeX^e essijui; *iircaio sdd- ocf noi:fioqoaq IX ^ "io *uo emlcf d-as 

home county of the writer of this opinion there aje twenty-one 
lawyers in active practice of whom at least twelve have an annual 
income from their profession greater than the annual salary of a 
circuit judge. When we take into consideration the years of train- 
ing, the requisite learning, their integrity and the great respon- 
sibility resting upon them it is a notorious fact that there is no 
class of o\ir citizens as inadequately compensated as our circuit 
judges. Because a circuit judge is grossly underpaid is no reason 
why an attorney should not receive reasonable compensation if he 
earsn it. 

In the present case four attorneys of high standing at the 
Kane county bar, two of whom had been actively engaged in the lit- 
igation in which appellee's services were rendered, testified that 
appellee's services were reasonably worth from $7,000 to $10,500, 
Appellant did not introduce any testimony to the contrary. While it 
is true that there is a reluctance on the part of attorneys to op- 
pose a claim for legal services yet if appellee's claim was grossly 
excessive, as claimed by appellant, out of the many attorneys ox the 
Kane County bar and the thousands of attorneys in Chicago, where the 
partition case was tried, certainly some witnesses could have been 
obtained to have put a lower estimate upon appellee's services, 1/Vhile 
in our opinion the amount allowed is high, it is a matter of common 
knowledge that attorney's fees vary in different parts of the state 
and even in different counties of the same circuit. The evidence 
shows that fees are higher in Cook than in Kane county. The learned 
judge before whom the case \vas tried, and who heard the evidence and 
who from his local knowledge and experience in the allowance of sol- 
icitors fees, was entirely capable of forming and exercising an in- 
dependent judgement on the question, approved the finding of the 
jury and rendered judgment thereon and we would not feel justified 
in setting it aside. 

The judgment is affirmed, 


sno-Yd-nsv.d- stj= sTisxld" noiniqo ei-l:t "io istlmv add- 'lo y^^J^'o^ smod 

Ii3JLrnnj3 «£ 3V£ri fvlavvd- ia&e£ :!•£ ciorlvv lo ecxj-oj^iq bvHojo ni ensYWBl 

ii lo Tii-.l£a Ij3jjnnii oriJ njjxl^t isct-^&'i^ xioiaesloiq lisxld- raonl smooni 

-xii^id- '±0 Q'ijzev Qdt noiJ-i^ieLxenoo od-ni a^jsj- sw nodW .sgLirQ d-iuoiio 

on ai oasxld' J.srid- uOiil sjjoxaoj-on ^ ex Ji meriJ noqw -gaiiaQi xiilidtB 

tlLfozio Tuo BSi bat^sneqmoo xLeis^upebi^ni. 8£ enesxd-io luo lo aaslo 

noax'si on ax btjoqiQbmj ylaaois ax 3p,i'i/i; ctixroixo £ sairiioeS .essLx/t 

eri '±1 noid-£anaqmoo sla.cnOB.tSQ'i evx&oe'i d-on LLuodb xeciioits ni; ydw 

.d'X neiBQ 
Qcii :fii ■^aiba^:^B xlgixi lo sYsnaod'j'jB ajjox aaxso d'nsasiq oild' nl 

-j-xl Slid- nx L&s-^S^s i^Isvxd-cjs nesd Li^xl niorfw lo owt ^i^cf yJni/oo ensiX 

Jerid- ieilxrasd- jiisasi/naT; aaaw ascivise e'oalleqqjs rioxriw ni noxd'^gi 

.006tOI$ od- OOOtVi^ raoii £l:t'iov; Y^cfisnoeiisi ezev eocxviee e'ssXIeqq^ 

d^x sIxrIW .Y^i3ad-noo 6d& od- Ynomxlaed- vn^i eoisboifnl d-on ixJj d-n^iIsqqA 

-qo od- e^QHiod-d^ lo d-iijq 8rf:t no aon^ioisLei s ei aisrid- d-^jrid- suit ex 

YI&801J5 ajow KJiJ3lo a'sslleqqxi 11 :tSY asoxvise Ij:;s8I aol mij^Io is aeoq 

8:ld- 10 8Yanio;td-^i ynjom arid- lo d-xro ^dniillaqqi; ycf Lsmxiilo ££ ^evxaaaoxs 

ari^ aisriv.' ^og^ioxriO nx aveniod-d-ii lo eLn^awoxfd- edt iuna i^d Yd-nxroO en^X 

need avj^ri biuoo Ba&aeniivi araoa Y-C^i^^^'^yo tLaxad- 8J3W aeJ30 noid-ld-ir.q 

sIxdW .aaoxviaa a'aallaqq^i noqxr ad-jsmxd-ea lawol js d-jjq avj.iri od- ij8nx£^cfo 

noiranoc lo leif^m ^ ei: d-x trisxri ax LswoIIju; d-nxroai-3 arid- noxnxqo ixro nx 

9d-jj.:fa Sil;t lo cd-i^q d-naisllxL nx y^-^v asal a'YsnTOdd"^ d-i;£ld- agjjaIwon:j{ 

aonaLxva ariT ,fiuoiio ems^s and- lo aaxd-nuoo d-naiallxL nx nave has 

L&nij:al ariT .Yd-niiroo an^Ji nx njjdi .^ooD nx larisxxl eaxj aaal d-^rid- awoxia 

bas aonaixva arid- bi.i^&d orivv bnxi ^taxid- s£>v aeuio add- moriw aiolecf agi»x;i; 

-Loe lo aonjiwoIXx; arid- nx aonainaqxa Lnii o;5^i;aIvvon3f I^ool aid moil odw 

-nx nil s^xaxoiaxe la^ gnxmiol lo elcTiiqjoO Y-f&^i^na exjw ^aeal bioJxox 

axid" lo ;-;nxLnxl odd- Lsvoiqq^ jnoiJeoup arid- no itnaraagjjjji; d-naLnaqaL 

Lofixi^oai, Xaal d-on Llxrow aw bnis noaiaricf Jnamgi^i/i LaiaLnai Ln^; y^J^C 

• eLxaii ol -gniiieB ni 
.LamiillB ei d-narasLi/t ad? 


SECOND DISTRICT. \ ^^- I. ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court, 

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, 
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in 
the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of 
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty. 

C^rk of the Appellate Court. 

6/?«iq' j V ■') A 


- /V <<r->^ 



Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth da<f of October, 
in the year of\our Lord one thousand nine hug^red and 
twenty, within find for the Second District^f the State of 
111 ino i s : 


Present--The Hon. DOBRANCE DIBELL, Pres idi/g Jus t i ce 
Hon. JOi% M. NIEHAUS, Justi^ 
Hon. OSCAB E. HEARD, Just/ce 

' 2i9^-^-^^^ 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on October 
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the 
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following, to-wit: 



Gen. No. 6G39. 

Anna R. Keller, 

va. Appeal from Rock Island 

State Bank of Rock Island, 
Appall- nt. 

219I.A. 636 

Niehaua, J. 

This case was passed upon by this court at the 
October Term 1918, and in opinion filed February 8, 1919 the judgment 
of the circuit court of Rock Island county was reversed with a find- 
ing of facts. A certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court, and on 
review there, the judgaant of this court was reversed, because one of 
the controverted questions of fact involve! was not passed upon, and 
the cause remanded to this court to be again heard and determined. 
Keller v. State Ban? of Rock Island 393 111. 553. 

The Supreme Court summarized the facts discloaad by the 
record, to be as followsj 

"On June ft, 1914, Mrs. Pearl I. Hawley, who had 
a sfvVings accoiint in the State Bank of Rock Isalnd, went 
with her mother, Anr.a R. Keller, to the bank ani had the 
account changed and a new book issued in the name of "Anna 
R. Keller or Pearl I. Hawley." the chE^nge was made because 
Mrs. Hawley feared that her husbani might interfere with the 
account. The amount was |'1874,75, whioh was reduced by checke 
(gf Mrs. Hawley paid from time to tine, anl interest was cred- 
ited simi-annually. Mrs. Keller never drew any checks again- 
st the account. Mrs. Hawley diei January 18, 1917, and soon 
after Mrs. Keller, claiming there was a br.lance due on the 
account, demanded payment, which was recused, and thereupon 
the sue! the bank in as?.umpsit. The bank defended on the g 
ground that it had paid the whole amount on checks signed by 
Mr. Hawley. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plain- 
tiff and a judgment for $1059.74. The bank claimed to h^ve 
paid this amount on a check of Mrs. H-wley which the pl'in- 
tiff in error claims was not signed by her, nr if it was eifmed 
by her, was materially ch'-.nge i without her authority before pay- 


.esoa .oM .nsO 

,T3iIs]I .H sank 

di^d .A.iexs 

ifnsm^tu.t 9rft 9iei .8 y^^-" "''' '■■^r.^'^ ciolatqo al ba£>^8Lei ai^T redotoO 

no tn.s ,d"i0oO eniPiqjjS 3£ft '-cT fcsirr^rrs sjsw i:TJ5ioi::!"iso A .e;fo3'i lo g^i 

i-n^ ,0oqi; i:>988Bq *on a.sw fcevlovrrl itofil lo anoxJ-ssixp tatnsvot.tnoo srfJ- 

»i)9alifiT9t9b fcfijs fci^sff ftx;3g£ scf ot tiiroc alri;t o* tetnstaaT: sbubo erfJ 

.SS3 .III S<5S bn^Xal jfoof? lo ^n^S ecf^tS .v T9II9X 

srft Ycf feeoloexfc eiJ-o^^ ^r't tgsii^rnrajjB &rsjoD gmsiqi/S sriT 

rewoCIot a^ 9d o;t ,i:aoo9i 

f>^rf oifw ,Y9lv'^ •! Ii£9^ .BiM .i'Xei ^§ snuL nO" 

d-nsw ,tnlsal :ioofl lo >InjS'3 sJ'js^fa srit ni ^nuooo-s agniv^ia £ 

Silt JbjsrI i:njs rsfnad snt orf- ,T9lX93 .fl -nnA ^igdj-om Tsrf dtiv 

jsunA" ■ - T 9ri,t al Leuael ^ood wsa 5 ba£ b^-ga^o tauoooa 

9BJj.',09: ^;w egxi3rro sxi'i" " .yalw^K .1 Ii^s"? :to 19^193 .fl 

9ff,+ ff.+lw «T?--=>.tni ^Irlgirn 1: n^rfeirff larf ;f^il;}- t9i-:9l ^^alw^H .atiM 

-.tSTO a£w ifes-xstal tn^s ,9^1* o* amxt moil i?x-sq ^{sIw-aH .siM 13) 

-nisg£ siDsrfo y^J^ wgit Tsvsrx •rgllaJI .aiM .YlI-i^rX/nnjs-jtnjiB t9tx 

rooa Jbrc-s jVX8I ,ex yi^J^^jsI, iairfc '{9XwjsH .e^M . Jnjjooojs exfJ ;te 

srft no 8i/i3 9on3X.?cf .3 £.sw gisrld- ;gnxrcxjGXo ^isXiaS .aiM T9;f^^ 

noqxj-ier'd- fcn^ .beeu'^st s^w lioiilw' ttngmY-aq t9tn.;m9Jb ,;tnuoooB 

^ sdl- (TO b9£;n9*9iD ::rG.ccf exlT . tiBcrajF.a>? nx in^d 9--l;f Irgue 9ff6 

yd tsHT^XB 82(o3rio no tnuoms sicriw ecii ti^q tjsri *x &£id& bauoTg 

-at-iq srf& toJ *oi:fci?v £. ai teiiutai Ij^tit grfT .-/aXw-sH .iM 

9Vi?rf ot betaiaio 3fr. ' - "" .^V.eaox|; aol tnemgfcuc i tn^ IIXJ- 

-nx-Xq erf* ffoirfw . .b:cM lo 3lo9rfo s no jrrx/omjs atdi tiijsq 

h0n:;3f8 P..-^ +X Jt To ,ipi ton e^w amx.3Xo loiie fix llti 

~X-^ sto'-'ft:""' ytirod^us r&d n.-do xllsireSsfs a^zw ,"1911 vcf 


Mrs. Hawley livel with her, William C. Hawley, 
on a farm ne^.r Ainsworth, Iowa, The contestel chekc was 
written on a blank of the Commercial Savings Bank of Wash- 
ington, Iowa, with a line drawn through those names ani 
the worls "Rock Islc-.nd State Bank" ani Rock island. 111,," 
written above them. It was dated January 3, 1917, the 
payee was the Ainsworth Savings Bank, and its amount was 
^1079.48. It was presented for payment by the People's 
Neitional Bank of Rock Island oiS January 13, 1917. It bore 
the rubber 'stamp indorsements of the Ainsworth Savings Bank 
the Iowa N;.tional Bank of Davenport, Iowa, and the People ♦ 8 
National Bank. Payment was re'^used.the check w-.s stamped 
on its face "insufficient funds," anl was re-^urned to the 
Peoples Nctional Bank. This bank returned it to the Iowa 
Nation:.! Bank, which informed the Ainsworth Savings Bank 
by telephone that payment had been refused because of in- 
sufficient funds and the check was coming back. Stephens, 
the oashier of the Ainsworth Savings Bank, then authorized 
the Iowa National Bank to change the am.ount, which was done 
by L. G. Bein, assistant oashier of the Iowa National Bank, 
drawing a line through the amounts writ+en in the body of 
the check and in figures in the margin and writing 8.bove 
them in red ink the amount $1059. 74. Bein also wrote on the 
back o: the check the statement that the aimoxint had been 
changed by that bank and was gxiaranteed to be tl059.74, 
January 15, 1917, The check so altered was then deposited 
again with the People's National Bank and on January 16, 1917 
was presented to the defendant in error and paid. 

On the 'day the check for *1079.48 was presented and dis- 
honored the bank wrote a letter to Mrs. Hawley informing her 
that payment of her check had been rifiused because of insuf- 
ficient funds; that her balance was |'1059.74 and that a check 
for that amount would be honored. Har husband testified that 
he showed her this letter but not that she read it or could 
have ree.d it or was conscious, and that the next morning he 
went to the Ainsworth Savings Bank. There was no evidence 
of any at:.tement made by Mrs. Hawley either at that time or 
when the check wap signed. The plaintiff in error testified 
that Mrs. Hawley was unconscious from January 9 until her 
death, on January 18, and there is no evidence that she was 
not. Stephens, the cashier of the Ainsworth Savings Bank, 
testified that the check was first brought to him from Ha-Fley 
with the name of the payee and the amount blank. Stephens 
wrote in the name of the payeee and the araoxint, which he got 
fron Haley, who had him figure the interest on the account, 
Stephens then sent the check to the Iowa Nstional Bank for 
collection, and when afterward informed by that bank that the 
amount was not correct he conferred with Hawley, and then told 
the bank that Hawley was willing for them to change the amount, 

The Supreme Court fovind that there was two controverted 

questions of fact involved in the case, namely, first! Did the 

check bear the genuine signature of Pearl I. Hawley; and secondly, 

was the check matetially altered after its delivery without her 

authority. This coxirt found, that the check was the genuine check 

of Mrs. Hawley, but did not pass upon the question rs to whether 


,^9Xw£H .0 T^liil'! tLr::i(JasJii isi. nTXT7 LeviL ^elw^H .a:cM 

e,?w c5/9rio ts-tasc^iioo sriT «£WoI iriitioweniA i.isn rai^l £ no 

-rieaW lo ini-S esniv^S X^ioismflioO srl^ lo sfn.slrf « no nsd-Jliw 

fcrtjs 932T;Tn 390:"f* rf^jjoirft nw£i£i sail £ rf*Jtw ,^woI ,not:53ni 

",.IXI .bnelst aCooH fn^ "aln^a 9+/^cf^ tn.':;lel :!fooH" efciow id;f 

erf.t ,Tiei «£ YiJSi;n.sI, ts^^i: Bs:n &1 .meri* svoc/js xT9:)'*x"tw 

saw d-m;om£ a;ti tns .jfnjsB agniv«8 rfd"row8niA srft a^w ss^^q 

e'slqos? 3i'f:f ^cf :^^^aIY^Q 10^ tstnsseiq bsw :M .8>.8V0xf 

9iocf *I .TIGX ,SI ^fi-=jjn£L Bro in-=XeI ioofi lo ,\'n^a X^noXt-sH 

i'ajss a-sniVBB rfd'TowenxA srfcf lo B&asmQaiotai qsaji&a 'i9d<iu'i Qdt 

a'eXqos'? sdf ba£ ,j3W0l , itioqnsv.'iG lo jfn^H Xerrol^f.-W «woI srjjf 

£sq^..^.te 9 ow slosrio 9fft .irisau'ltsi sew jHSiaY^*? ,jlas3. Isnoi&sZ 

Qd& o* fcsfiTjjtsT srw JbnjB ".afcriif'i i-asioX I'iri/anX" 30a=l q^X no 

3WoI srft o:)' JX fcsnTi/.teT injscf exxlT .^fnaS I.:aoX;f:;ll asXqoe*! 

:(n£S 8^nXv£3 rf^iowaniA exf* beraio!:!:! rfoXxl"W .afa^a X-mioXJ^TI 

-nX ^0 ssujsoscf Xssxjtsi nescf X\sd *n9tn^t--iq .Leiij- anorfqsXa* ycf 

,en8-rfqs*8 .io^cf ^nX.'yiOO ajBW iosjXo Bii& Lii^ Btciu'i J'nsXoXUxja 

t'9sXTOrf*0i:- ct9di ,:?x-tjH e^nXv^B f'tttowenXA edt lo leXxla^o edt 

9aot ervi ffoXffw ,.fr- ' '0 o* ifnjsa XjsnoXd-.sH £woI edt 

,jfcf.3? XsrroitBW £wc so tn^taXee^ trtXea .0 .J -^d 

lo x^od srfj- nX tisr^ijv: e-izL.:.:-^ sd& d-^uord:^ eriXX s gnXwa-rl) 

avof^3 ^nXtXi^' tn£ nt-gi3:c sci* crt a'^iusXl nX fcrra ioario 6ri* 

erft no etcrw oeXb nia? .I'V.GSOXl tnuorrus 3dt -^ai bai at mexid" 

nsecf tsd fnuotne srf* Jsctd- .tiramect^j-si 6ri^ jfosrip 9ri* ':o ioscf 

,j&''!'.950X* 9cf orf' fcee^njsi£i;g a^w tas ^.asd ^jsd& ^d b3-§a:ido 

tefiaoqet aadt asw tsi^tls. oa io3rfo sdT t'^lSl ,<1X ^i.'3un-sL 

TXeX ,31 ^teurrjsL no Xfi« in^S X^noi^JsH e'eXqcsl arf* rfvtXw rrXjsg^ 

• fcX-'q fcnfi toils nX d-nabnalsi: edf o* fcstaaasiq saw 

-aXb tnjs £9J-nsa3'xq aj3w Si^.STOX;^ xol Jtodiio ©ri-t ^afc ©rl^ rjf) 

T9rf S^XmiolnX Y^-^W-fH . siM oi' is;t:*sl s etoin :iasd 9dt Xatonori 

-IjjertX' lo 98Ui?oocf bsEX/aSi aeed i i?rf iosrfc xexi lo d-aasuj.-q t-ndi 

•iOQdo ^- tirrfd' Xhjs ^V.eSCXlJ e-ev ^-on^Xod isrf, Sjadt ^eXxu/l t'nsXoXl 

JbiI* XjsXlx.tasJ- Xn.sdsjjxl loH .tsionoxl 3o LXuow iauoai^ :^«i'ut 10I 

fcXxroo 10 JX basn srfe t^riJ ton fud is.-tleX aXrf* lerf X)9woxfn ed 

erf ^nXaTom tzsn srfd- -^ sdi tnz ,3jjcXoanoo a-vr 'lO rfX i;«0T;. sv^d 

SDfisbXvs on ej^w 9i«ifT .irtsa EgnXv^S iij-iowaniA arij oif tasTt 

10 ©mX* trrit tj? i9xld-X9 ^Ql^3U .siM ^cf 3£; *n9m9*.:.;t« Y^-s lo 

bsXlXtas* 10113 at llXtnxBlq srfT ..bengXe 5-:-w :(o9rfo Sfft rxerfw 

teri XX tm; Q x'zMia^Jj rrroil ax/oXosnoonx; a^;?? y--^^-sH .bi1£ tf-^rfd- 

s^w en's tBd& 9on9tXve on aX enerTt ttie ,8X y^-^^^s^ 00 ,dt£9X) 

,3{n^a asnXv^S rfJ"iowanxA srIJ lo laXrfejso 9rfd^ .snorfqa^fS .ioa 

Y9X'-v.8H moil mXxf ot ifrfgxroiQ' taiil SjSW afosrio erft t3rf;+ b^XlXJes*' 

easdqs&B .jlasild tauomxi sdi '- — Y-sq ^dt lo 'i^ra^n sricf rfrf-Xv; 

tog 9rl rfoXrfw ,iJ-niJ0in.3 orf* brii; -- ^at lo 9tn.3n sri* nX gtoiw 

.tm;oDO£ Off* no d'89'r9tJ3X atft r 3.j.. . .ttXeT f:-;ri orfw ,^9-1^-" noil 

10I afnjsa X£noXd-.sW ,swoI erft ot Jtoerfo 9riJ tnse nerf.t snoriqetS 

srit tasri* :5fn*scf t,sxit YCf XaxciolxiX fcij3wi9tl£ nsxlw Xos ,jnoXtc3XXoo 

fclot flSL'J fca£ »v®Iw.8H tltXw £:?iielnoo sri tooiioo ion B-r.v txiuom.-; 

^.tm/offii5 9rf* ©gnjsrio o* ffi3nt 10I ^nXXXXw Bisw ^S-f^'-sH tjsri* iiijscf ar^t 

t«ti9Voitfloo owt a£W 9i9rft *■ ■- rtuol ifiXfoO »ai9iqi;8 eriT 

9rit JbXQ rtsiXl ^x-^s^o^n ,&c..o -..J- nX t3\'XovnX t0£l lo enoXtsswp 

jYltnooas ta& j^eXwrH ,1 Ixs^l lo enrtfingXa QnXunsg ©rit i£»cf ioerfo 

19x1 tjjorftxw Yi9vXX»t aAi ietl£ JbeiatXis xXX^Xlatjem afos£fa «at b£W 

atoerfo gaXyn^^ ©xf* bjbw ioarfo edt, tsdt ,Jtmiol tii/oo eXxIT .Y*Xioriti/£ 

isr'tsrf^' ot s.-: aoXts9x;p sdi aoqv sBjsq ton bib iud ,Y9Xwi3H .aiM lo 


it was materially altered without her authority after its del- 
ivery. And in connection with this phase of the case, the 
Supreme Court holds the law to be aa follows! 

"Where a person signs a negotiable instrument which 
ia imcomplete because the amount is left nl£,nk z.vA delivers 
it for use, the custodi;-n of the p'cxper has implied author- 
ity to fill in the amount. Merritt v. Poyden & Son 191 111, 
136. Accordingly, when the cushier of the Ainsworth State 
Bank, at the direction of Willian- C. Hrwley, wrote into 
the paper bearing Mrs. Hawley^s name .the amount of $1079,48, 
the paper became her genuine check for that amount, as was 
found by the Appellate Court. It was not, but after 
its disliOnor the payese caused the amount to be changed to 
$1059.74. This made another and different check. There is 
no finding th:-.t this change was authorized by Mrs. Hawley 
or thut this check was her genuine check. When she gave her 
check in blank she g'.ve the custodian imnlied ^.u^-hority to 
perfect the check by filling the blank. There is no evid- 
ence of any other au*hority than that implied by law. Haw- 
ley perfected the check by causin?^ the blank to be filled. 
This was in accordance with his implied authority an3 Mrs. 
Hawley became bound by the check. Ke was not, however, 
authorized to bind her by ixnother check. He hai made the 
check which he v/?.3 authorized to make, and he could not make 
another without further authority. 

Counsel for the defendant in error Eefer to cases hold- 
ing that the holder of a negotiable instrument iniorsed in 
blank may correct the contract \vhich he has written : 'ove 
a blank indorsement, even as late as the trial. It is true 
that a blank indorsement on a promissory note which has been 
filled up to sta.te the contract incorrectly may be corrected 
so as to stc.te the contract correctly, but in the present 
case the blank was filled in accordance with the authority 
BKxkiHxiix of the agent and bec^.me by that act binding on his 
principal, as the Appellate Court has found. He could not 
■vithout other s.uthority bind her by another check." 

The finding of fact made by this court concerning the 
genuineness of the signature of Mrs. Hawley, and the conclusions 
drawn from the evidence in that regard are not disturbed by the 
decision of the Supreme Court, and on reconsideration of the case 
our conclusion remains the same on that question. 7?e h ve care- 
fully examined the record, but find no evidence of authority 'or the 
alteration of the check after it had been filled out, and presented 
to appellant for payment. An effort was made by the appellant on 
the trial to show authority by Mrs. Hawley to her husband, by attempt- 
ing to prove a conversation, which it was claimed Mrs. Hawley had 
with her husband 4t the time he claims, he cilled his wife's attention 
to appellant's lettey, notifying her of the refusal to pay the check 


"let ati. le' 

iijsliai'jsm a£W i-i 


«8^»oTOI:5. Id 

-tiV9 on 

.3tM ^fT'' v^tto: 

9i'?:jr ton bluo^ 

"tlod 898 30 o.t isiaa 
at beaiotat ■^ze-rur'^ 

SUt^ Bt ft 

nsacf oxjrf rfoidw Bio a v 

ill ao 
ton L 


8 r 

Oil t- 


toJaeitiq tin 
no tajzliscr 

_ 4 

r ':/; Y^ .T :k . rr; 
rioxirrs^tta e'sllw aii ^y^x i 


• sialqfisoorfti ei 

UO Qlit ,93J-f to* d-i 

9ri;t ni IIl^ o* >{*1 

aud- ftSi^w .YX^iicii'-'iO'voA .SSI 

i'" "^0 floitostii: 9.^* t^ ,in^ 

.'jjnsg lad era^-o^cf tsqjsq srit 

,ti0oD s&BllBqoA. f,d& Y^ tfli/o^ 

ru-rC 2:ie\jfiq &;;':? T:o:io:l8iiJ a:M 

t;- Qt£m airiT .:^?. 63011^ 

.- eirfJ :t-;rl;t j^attat'i on 

aajLi-flsg 13^ a.ctv :fo3rrc sirfi- ^srit ao 

^ini-CIi"^ ^jcf 3fo9io arit *09!ti9q 

- "■■tirjQrf+jjr- ^9rf,to ynfi ^0 oona 

■ Si'-d- Jb3:}"09^T9q \eL 

hioooB at aan eiilT 

;c' iiufocf 9C!j£03cf YQ-CwsH 

lerl Laid oi t^stiodtUB 

iiui'XOiltifis B'sw sd rioxxfw ^osrio 

■1+0£ isrij-Tifl tuocittit lad&oajj 

' f9l:si) 9f-3- To^ l^aauoD 

:. £ "io i9t£ori @iit fjiat -Qat 

i-iJitoo erf:? tosiioo ^{i3ffl ^In^Id 

" - rrev* , ■trT«m°oiotnl~in.v-Ic' .n 

a o* qir fceXIit 
" 3tJ-iioo ;?rfc!" d*-^te oJ a.a oa 


-•■rito Juoff^tiv.' 

iitxTll srfT- 

rgle ssrf+ lo essnsniwflsg 

■■:t fflOT^: awBit 

jjO &i'Ci;iqi;-. -^ noiaioai 

■-■,^a 9ri* ani.6ins*r .loxaulcnoo ixfo 

.1 i^aiz tucf ^t-cooet arft laatx^xs x^^"^ 

' Jiosrlo ©ff* ^o aot&^TsilJi 

tro'izo xiA . Jnd«Y5q rol i-a3£LBqq£ oi 

•id ^ttrod&OB woria o* Lstrt sd& 

(loit^et^vaoc & svoiq oi gni 

"J. -i. ;.i' tjiiS- ©fit ** Jbnacfetfri loif £[:fiw 


on account of the amount inserted therein being in excess of the 
deposit. The trial court refused to allow the husband to test- 
ify to this conversation, and error is assigned on this rulin? of 
the court. We are of opinion that the conversation was not ad- 
missible as eviience, and there was no error in this ruling of the 
court. Hahlstedt v. Ideal Lighting Co. 271 111. 154; Monaghan v. 
Green 285 111. 333; Shreffler v. Chsse 24- 111. 395. The evidence 
of a material alteration of the check in question is clear anl not 
fisputed; payment of the chect by the appell:^.nt ws.s not available 
as a defense to the action, unless authority to make the alteration 
was shown. No authority having been proven it follows, that the 
verdict and judgment is right; and it ia affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed* 


•xuoo lir-ilJ arfT .Jiaoqs 

-. _ ,. . ..^ifsartevaoo ^^-''f -^zrf nciriiqo "50 ei^ aW .ifiixoo er. 

riif "^r, aailjjf p rr::l l-.I loiie :i ru- ,30iisiiva 8£ sIdiaeJ 

.. ...i-gsaoV i _ , .11 ITS .oO -;ajt:!:^-iJ i.39x^I .v ^t9iaLcljM . .tiuc 

aoaetlv-9 sxfT .aee .III • ramsiriS jscs .1X1 362 ctssi 

ton Tt-" -ri-elcj si r:c,ij:^.eu'i nx ^osrio edt io .fioxtiia^I.^ Lciiscfsm 5 1 

edt :f,-rrt ,pwoiIo'i tl i^6v::Tc- .Tsscf gnJtv^ri >{d'liorftii£ oK .nworfa a£ 
..'-•> r jtdsii ai ^asm^tx/j; tn£ iotLia 


SECOND DISTRICT. f ^^- I. ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, 

do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in 

the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of 
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty. 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

i.' * 


. ^ 


Begun and held B,t Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fiftJl day of October, 


in the year ot^ our Lord one thousand nine/hundred and 
twenty, within\and for the Second Distrjfct of the State cf 
Illinois: Y 

Present--The Hon. DORflANCE DIBELL, Pres /ding Jus t i ce . 
Hon. JOHN\m. NIEHAUS, Jus /ice 
Hon. OSCAR \E. HEARD, Jus/ice 
CURT S. AYER^, Sherif 

2i9l.iV. 636 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on October 
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the 
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following, to-wi t : 

Gen. No» 6742 « Agenda 48. 

Herbert Hammond, 

V8 ' Appeal from Kane. 

J. W. MacDonald, 



Nlehaus.,. J» 

In this case the appellant, Herbert Hammond, 
brought auit in assumpsit against J. W. MacDonald in the 
circuit court of Kane county. The suit is to recover tl750.00 
olaimei to be due on a promisory note which the appellee had 
gi\»en to the Union Agency Company, a corporation, in payment 
of 100 shares of capital stock of that company. The appellant 
filei an affidavit of claim with his declaration, claiming 
the amount due to be tl552.90; and it was afterward stipulated 
by the parties, that there was due on the faceoof the note, and 
according to the averments of the affidavit anl claim, the a- 
mount mentioned. An affidavit of meritorious defense was filed 
by the appellee with his pleas, which alleged that the note in 
question hai been obtained from him by means of fraud and false 
representations; and that the -^ppellisnt hal notice of that fact 
before he purchased the note in question. There was a trial by 
jury on the issues involvel, which resulted in a veriict and 
judgment in favor of the appellee and this appeal is prosecuted 
frorr; the juigment. 

Appellant contends for a reversal of the juigment on 
several grounds, namely, that the trial court adrcittsi incomi'jetent 
evidence fior the appellee; and that upon the eviiencs adtritted, 
■tne court should have directed a verdict for the appellant. We 

.©n^rj moil l£9qqA ' av 



,£iI^-noaoj3M .W .L 


srfj rii: fclysnoQQji^I .1i7 ,1, &Bai£-g£ flsqausas nx j-xjjb *rfguoacf 

OO.OSVI^ 19V0091 o;^ ai d-xx/a sriT .'{d-nwoo sn^X 'lo cfrtifoo ttuotto 

cjsrf geXIsqq^ sri* rfoiri^: ed'orr vjaoaxmoiq js no sjjI ecf ot lenii^Xo 

.tfieflrf^c; rri ^noxj-^ttoqioo £ «y^'^Q''«0''^ YortsgA noinU edt ot a^ttl-g 

tasLxQqqj" sriT .Tfrinqmoo d-i>rid' lo ioocfe X^tiqjso 'to eeijsrfe 001 lo 

Lsti'Iiiqi+e fcijsv.'iad'x^ ser &t biiB ;06»se5X| so ot 9sjt ^rwoms edi 

t'n* i&ioa sdi *oo30£l arid- xjo svL q£.v 3teci& t^idt ^Bel&zsq 9dt ^6 

-'fi 9rft «ffiiJsXo tnj3 txvjetm^ erf* lo ad-neraisvj^ eclt ot gnxiiooor- 

teXxl 8JSW seaalet ai/oiio.+ xT9rfi lo :^iv£i)illJS nA .Lsnoid-nera j-xK/om 

nl a^oxi 8rfJ &'Bd& bs' rioixlw ,ei2sXq airi d&lrf oeXI©qq£ exf* ^jd 

©bX^I tnjs l5i/;-:il lo efuedas ^cf ffllrf moil f29nx£*o'o nsscf tjsrf nolJ-seup 

d-o£l *.srf# lo soxrfon tsd *j3»XIsqq.. .'& Las [Bnoi&£iaGBerq9z 

^d l&li^ Ji g^w ©TsrfT .noitssup al scfon sdt fcee^rloru/q sri siolecf 

tnjB *oli:T9V e ni baiLuset doxxfw ,£svXovni aeuael snd^ no YH/(; 

fc'jtuo^aoiq al Xjsaqqjs eiric* Jbas asXIaqqj. sri* lo Tovisl nx d-ngmgixfi; 

► i-namgii/i; ed& raoil 

no 'n9fcsti.r(; sffd* lo Xj3bt:9V9*i ^ ttol afcneJ-noo d-n^XI sqqA 

ta&f&qmoont isttlmba truoo Isltt edt *£ri;f .yXsm.oir .ebm/cxg l£T9V9e 

,fc9**iiTTf-.js sonstivs erf* noqxj ^jsrf* has -esXXsqqfi Qd& toS aoneiivs 

sW ..^n-XIsqq^ sr-i" lol .toxtiav & tstoaixl: ©v^-rf fcXuoris *ii/oo an* 

are of opinion that the court properly refused to direct a verdict 
in the state of the evidence at the close of the case. It is clear, 
however, that there was evidence admitted, which should have been 
excluded.^ The account books of the Union Agency Company were 
admitted in evidence, without competent preliminary proof, of their 
correctness, or authenticity; nor does the record contain any com- 
petent proof to show, that the books were correct or made in the 
regular course of the business of the Union Agency "Sompany; or 
that they contain a tone record of the business transatione of the 
company. The only proof contained in the cecord in that regard 
is hearsay evidence; and consists of statements testified to her the* 
witness Harvey Gunsel who was also allowed to state an indictment 
had been procured against the company as a result of his investigation* 
The evidence which was improperly admitted, was clearly judicial to 
the rights of appellant. A question is raised by the appellee con- 
cerning the bill of exceptions, namely, that Exhibits 1 t© 9 inclus- 
ive were not in the bill of exceptions when the same was presented 
to the trial judge on September 32, 1S19. It appears however that 
these exhibits were incorporated into the bill of exceptions before 
it was signed and sealed by the judge nunc pro tunc on Jfetch 3, 1930« 
This was sufficient to make the exhibits a part of the record. Madden 
V. City of Chicago 383 111. 165. For the reasons stated the judgment 
is reversed and the cause remanded. 


toibiev £ d-osiifc ocf tsesjlei Y-C^sqoTq ;fiJJOO sift txidi- notatqo 1o si 

^ts^lo at s-1 .98J50 srf* "o esolc srid- fjs sonsLxvs srf;}- lo 9t£tf-8 srff n 

nserf - oris ffolrfw ,i)9d'timt£ aonstiv© sb?-' 9T3rf:f &sdt «i9vewo 

^iS7! YnisgrnoO \;on9sA noxnU Qd& 1o aiooc .::auooo^ sriT ^hstuLox 

ixsrft !to t^tooiq Yi^nimxISTq i"a*cfeqinoo :t-i;orftxw ^aonstivs ni be&&lmb 

-moo Y-'i-s nlBJnoo iiioosi arit asoi: ion j^(d-ioltrf3rid'0J3 10 ^eaantosixo 

srf* nx stvG.T! 10 tosiioc sisw aafoocf erit d-^ri* t-^ode ot looiq &nets 

10 jYn-^^I'^''^3' ^onsgA noinU srf* !to eesnieud erii to seiuoo usXi/gs 

©rfj- 1:0 8nox:t8en>3icf EesnieucT 3rft J.o trocez saoi s alA&aoo ^&dt t^ 

tis^Bi &sdf at tiooao srf.t ni fcsnxBd-rroo ^ooiq -^flno sriT .Yn^qmo 

4 9rf+ lari ot bet'it&se& s&nemsfsfe lo atslanoo has (scnafciva vsetseA a 

(tnamtoifcnx xi^ e^sd-e ot £)swoIX£ oalos e^sw orfw IsBnisD -^evisii^ essaj-jt 

.noi*.e5iteevfli 9in' '5o *Ijjp91 ^ bj2 ^rtx^qmoc sdt janx^s ^^Tx;oo1q need -£^js 

o& l£totbul xltsaLo e£v ^bet&tmbB >cXi9qoiqpnl 8£w rfoxrfw songLivg 9ri 

-noo 99lL9qqs sifcf vfd .tsel-ei al nol;tB9x;p A . :frr£li8qq>e lo ajrigii arf 

-Si/Icnl e 9:t I a*i':fldx3 &^d& ^-^Ismaa »8rfoxd-q9ox© lo Illd grf* gnlnia 

fcatrreaeiq sjsw stfiBa erf* nsrfw enoxtqecxa ^0 Hid sd& nt ton siew ©v 

tsdf lavswod auseqq^ *I .5161 ,££ ledmatqsa no 9g£)J-rc X,fili* edt 

STO'Jsd anoitqeoxe 5c Hid srft o*ni fc9*£ToqToonx 9T9w a;tidirfx8 eeerf 

.OSGI ,£ ilolsM no oaut oiq ocrua s-gbu^ sif* yd tsl^sa Jbne Lafrgia Sisw rf- 

nel^fceM .tiooai erit !to tisq js eoidirfxs sriit 931.5m o* j£t©ioi^:lx/B sjew aid' 

d-namstxjr srf* i)9;tjsie anoa^ai arid- lo''! .531 .III S8S o^jsoidO lo x^-^O^**' 

. b^bttsmsi B6US0 9d& bn^^ fcasiavei e. 


SECOND DISTRICT.. f ^''- I. ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court, 

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, 
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in 
the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of 
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty. 

Clsrk of the Appellate Court. 

1^ i^^ '^ru-v 



Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the f/fth day of October, 
in the yearlof our Lord one thousand lyne hundred and 
twenty, within and for the Second Di/triet of the State cf 
111 inois : 

Present--The Hon. ^^DORRANCE DIBELL, p/es iding Jus t i ce , 
\ J 

Hon. ^OHN M. NIEHAUS , ^us t i ce 

Hon. 0§CAR E. HEARD , /Jus t i ce 



CURT S. kYERS, Shferiff 

219I.A. 637 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on October 
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the 
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following, to-wit : 

Gen. No. 6788 

Rcbert Lunlstrum, 

ioing business as 
Sterling Floral Company, 

V8 Appeal from City Court 

City of Sterling. 

Illinois Northern 

Utilities Company 



Niehaus, J. 

This case wi^s before us at a previous term 
on appeal, and the first judgment recovered by the appellee 
Robert Lundstrum against the appellant Illinois Northern Utilities 
Company, was reversed, and the cause remanded for another triai. 
Lundstrijun v. Illinois Northern Utilities Co. 111. App. 

The facts now presented by the record are substantially 
the same as recited in the previous opinion; Robert Lundstrum 
the appellee, owned a greenhouse in the city of Sterling; and the 
appellant o\vned an! operated a gas plant in th: t city; one of its 
pipes or mains was located in the street adjacent to his greenhouse . 
In January 1917 some of the plants which appellee was raising in the 
geeenhouse appeared to be stunted and some died, Abou-i- January 4th 
following, the appellee concluded that the trouble was from es- 
caping gas, and reported the master to the appellant; and it sent, 
out men to look for leaks in its mains. One ws found about 50 feet 
from appellee's building, and was thereupon fixed. This action was 
bought to recover for the unjury caused to appellee's plants, and 
the declaration charged that the defendant carele9sly and neglig- 
ently permitted its gas mains at the place indicated to get into 
a defective condition, permitting gas to escape, and averring that 
the ground became frozen and covered with ice so that the gas found 


88T8 .oM .nsO 

esllsq -- 


JiiroO Y*JcO moil I^-sqqA ^^ 

\{n£qfnoD sai^ilxJ-U 

.L ,81/5il9iH 

«:t9* auoiveiq ^ ts bis aio^^ed a.ew 98^0 aMT 

99Xl9qqB 9rit Yrf b9t9vooei Jnemsti/C :^aan ?ri* tn.. ^X^s^q^ no 

esitxIx^U nierfcf.cW exorrxlll tfl^IIeqa^ eri:f ^ranx.gB mx;Ttafcxu;J ^.sdoH 

,in-r: i^rf^on^ ao^ i9i>n^m9T aax/^o ^di boB .tsaisvsa e.-w ,Y«^qffloO 

J .qO asitxIld-U nTsrftioM aionilll .v Bu;i:fefcnuJ 

YlX^l*n.s*adi;8 ei^ b^ooai srf* Ycf h^insBSiq. won a:^o£l sdT 

axutr^afcnxrJ *tedoH jnoinxqo axroiveaq eri* nl t9*xo9T a^ em^a ad* . 
3rit LnB tsniXrts^P -o v-c ^ '+ ax eai/orfnssis i^ 1^9nv;o ^aelieqq^ 9ri:f 
8*i Ito eno i^tlz 3 -^ ta^^^sqo tn^ ban^o ^n^IIsqqi^ 

. seuorineeis b^^ o* tn.o.ibs ^eer^e en^ nx i.e. .ool a.w ani^ .o aeqxq 
erft ni gfllaip.-x a^w eslleqq^ rioixlw atelq srit lo emoa ^121 ^-xsvasX, nl 
rit^ YTx-iTfl^L ti/odA .beib amoa Ln^ i^aJnx/ta ad o* bea^eqqa 9auorin99»3 
-ee motl sbw ^Iduo-i* srf* t^Hd" fcs^^x/Ionoo sellaqq^ edi ,sniwolXol 
,Jnee *i En^ t^n^sXIaqq^ sri* o:^ ae.t^^ra arit ba^toqai tn^ .a^g gniq^o 
tes^ 05 *x/odr. fcnno^ 8..w enO .eaism atfi ni a^I^aX 'lot :fooX o:t nam *x;o 
e^-w noxto^ alriT .Jbsxi^ noqx;9^ail;f asy, bas .■gatbliud e'oaXXeqq^ mo:c^ 
l,n- -^JriBXq a'aeXXaqq^ ot t'aaxi^o Ya^QXu; sd:^ -lol 'xsvooea ocf triauod 
-3iX39a ^nr> yXaaeXe:riso JnaLns^efc aif^^ ■ aS-^^rfo aoU^r^loet edt 

oint tes ot bstr.ctbal so^Xq arit ^^ anx .-> a.3 8*i Lecr;Mm.eq xl^ne 
,..t 3al.— .n. ,eq.oae o. a.3 ,nX.nn..eq ,noi.itnoo -^^-^^^^ 
. ,., ,.rf. o. eox rl.lw t-e.^voo la. a..o.'. amaoad touoas erf. 

an underground ch^^nnel from the place of the le3.k to the green 
house; anl there arose to the surf ce, destroying some plants 
and injuring others. The case was reversed principally on 
the ground thctt there was no evidence of negligence, the appel- 
lee hi-ving tried his case upon the assumption that the doctrine 
or res ipsa loquitor applied; and offered no proof to show the 
negligence charged. The case has been tried again in the court 
below without a jury; and there was a fin.iing and judgment for 

the appellee for the sum of $3130,00 anl this appe?.l is pro- 
secuted from the judgment. 

It is now contended that the judgment should be re- 
versed because the charge of negligence made by the appellee in 
his declaration is not sustained by the evidence; also that 
incompetent testimony was introducei over the objection of ap- 
pellant. The evllence tends to show, that there was a gas 
leakage froT. appellant's main, which had been laid in the street, . 
in front of appellee's premises at a point where a service pipe has 
been joined and attached to the gas main. Appellant^s a^.in w?.s 1-^id 
28 inches below the surface of the street] ani not below the frost 
lin; anl unier these circumstances the frost action would be like- 
ly to effect the joints, which were not expansion joints. The ev- 
idence tends to show that the frost >^ction on the soft metal of the 
joint in question probably loosened it, ani caused the leak. 
Furthermore that proper construction, required a block of -vood or s^one 
to be pl?.ced under the main at the joint to hold it firmly, ani to 
prevent settling, and to minimize the Effect of the freezing and 
thawing of the earth, around the joint and main, and the expansion 
anl contraction resulting therefrom. It also appears from the ev- 
iedenoe that in 1916, which was the year previous to the time of the 
injury, that there was a sulden increase in the amount of lose of 


neaag srfJ oo ^AaeL f^di "io ac^i oil lann-^rio tauoi-g-ietasj a£. 

B^^nslq sraoB ■gnxyotiast ^so.-.t'ms srit o^ eaoTj3 ersdt LaB laauod 

no YJ^J^<s9-£oniTq tsartsvsT: sjew esfo srfT .eisriio •gairu'^ni fcrus 

-l8qq£ exit ,9onesiIgeri ^o sonstiva on a.6w saadt tisrfj JDiXucTg exit 

8niTtoofc 9rf* trd* noicfqiTJuaa^ arft noqi-f ssjso aid teiii& gniv^rl esX 

Slid- worfa o* loorrq oa teisllo ta£ jtailqq^ io;J-ix;poI ^saqi eei lo 

j'-ruoc 9rfJ nx rrijBSJS battt need esrf aejsc sdT .csgi^rio aoneaiigan 

TO^ frr^rrrtjJi; f;a£ Snllni^t £ a^w sisrit ba^ iX'^t - ti/orfcTiw wolecf 

alrit fcnjs 00.05ISI lo nu;a 9rf# lol ssXIsqqo^ edt 

.iciBorgtul srlt koiI tatucse 

-81 9cf tli/orfa tnsmgijjJi; sift t^rft ijstsns.+ noo v/oa sx +1 

rrx 9sll9qq£ orit vd si3-Gm gonagilgaii lo egi^rio exit sax/aosd beaisv 

tr.d& oBlB iQoaQbtvs edt y;d LBaijctBue ton ex aoitsinnLoeL Bid 

-qjE to aoitosfrfo srft tcsvo tsoi/ijoitiix aiVfi "iaomlSBot taateq.TEooni 

8^3 s e£w 9i9rft tj5£ft tWO£:e ct etnst oonstive edi .tasIXeq 

,t9»ita Sift nJt i)ij?I nesd Jb£fl doidn ,nx.sra a •'trx^IIsqq^ iroi^ sgriael 

end 9qiq 9oivi9e js aierfw tnioq ^ t^a esexmsTq a'eelleqq^ lo tnoil ai 

tl'L asm ai^im s^titfillsqqA .nisar es-g grit ot tarfci5tt£ tni^ fcanxOQ nascf 

teoil erit woXsd ton has [:}'^'er&B erit lo sojsItiib 9rit woXed esrfoni 8S 

-sjtXX 6d JbXi/ow noito.e taoTa .on^taniwoilo aaer^t letau Lns ;niX. 

-ve ©riT .etnxoi; noien^qx© ton gisw riolxlw tatnxoj; srit toslla o**" X*^ I 

Bdt lo X^tem tloa erit no noxto/; teoil erit terit worfa ot atxist eonsLA"^ 

.:{soX 9rft b&Buso tas ,ti fisnoeooX ^Xd^cfortq aoxtaex/p nl tnxot 

©no-'e 10 fcoo^' to :^ooXcf e teilup^r ,no.ctojJitenoo isqoiq tj^rft sioraierit'iu'H" 

ot tn ,\ilfc;'i/'. tX I)Xori ot" tniOQ 9dt tjs nianr erit letm; i^sosXq ©d ot 

bus snis99il erit lo toelli srit ssimxnim ot Las^ ^^ail'ttee tngvaiq 

CiOieaBqxB erit Xins tflXjBin bas txiXot srit bauoia ,ritTX'9 srit lo gniw^rit 

-vs ©rit ffiOTl .eifi9qq£ c T '::3rit snitXirasa noXtcsstnoo bas 

erit '-^o emit srit ot ejjoiv&r.:; zz::x -::;J- ajr-w rioXriw ,8XGX at tsrit ©onsXiaX 

lo aaoX lo tnuor?TJs srit -" -- ---rri nettle £ - - -"isdi t^rit «:ctri;(;nx 

gas from the mains, which indecatel that thee might be a leak in 
the maina; and the extent of the iisooloraticn of the soil next 
to the leakage also inlicated, thatt the leak which was found, 
must have existed for a lon^ time previous to the month of Jan- 
uary 1917 when the in>ury was caused. In this stat? of the evid- 
ence the court was justified in concluding , that the appellant 
has sufficient notice to put it upon inquiry concerning leakage; 
and that when the matter of the sudden increase of the amount of 
gas lost from its m^ains cam.e to its attention, in the exercise of 
reasonable care, the appellant should have made an inspection of its 
mains in the customary way to discover leaks; and that it could 
have done so before the ground became frozen. It is a reasonable 
inference from the evidence, that if such inspection has been made 
in the usual and ordinary way, the leak would have been discovered 
and the iniury thereby prevented. We are of opinion, that there is 
a sufficient basis in the evidence for the finding of the court on 
the question of negligence. It is contended, that the court erred 
in allowing the appellee who was a witness in his own behalf, to 
answer over appellant's ocjection, questions concerning the am.ount 
of his damages, be'cause, it is insisted that the questions contains 
some elements which are not competent to be considered on the question 
of damages, in addition to the elements in the question which are 
proper to be considered. It is a sufficient answer to this con- 
tention, that the objection which was made to the question on 
the trial, was not on this ground; the elements now claimed by 
councel to be improperly in the question, whould have been pointed 
out to the trial court, so as to give the trial court an ooportunity 
to rule on the objection and to give appellee and opportunity to 
amend his question leaving out the objectionable elements in the 
case the objection were sustained/ Now having made the objection 


nx :<fj39l £ 9cf 3-ilg irn asrlJ- t.6di tet^^oet ai xiciriw .anijsni edt moil ajsg 
d-xsn 1x06 i .:oxt-6iolooa.£i sri:' lo cfasiJ-xs adt ta£ [eai^m srft 

-n^L ^0 ritxioffl 9/1* o* asjolvsiq smli -gaol s io1 be&atxQ avM Jaura 

-I-xvs 9rf;t lO gf£j8 siif:f nl .tsau^o a^w x'wlal 9x1* ngriw 7X61 ^i£u 

*fl.ell9qqjs 9rf* *£rfi- , gniiulonoo ni iseliXJau-r sjst/ v+ijjoo srI* gone 

J9^s3fs9l ^nxnisonoo y'I-^^P^J^ aoqis *x d-uq o* 9oi*on jrraiojtlljja ajsrf 

1:0 *fXJJom£ 8ri.t J.o sa^gaonx asttua sdt lo i9t*jsm 9/1* nexfw *^£f* fcrijs 

to 98loT9X8 sff* n2 ,noXv+n9**£ 2*x 0* s.tijso anxjBm a*x boiI *8oI a^g 

etx ^o rroi*o9qanx rrjs gLsm 9V£rf i^Iworla tn^LLeaqs sri* »9a^o 9ld£noa£9i 

iluoo cM *j3n'd- fcxijs jajT^gl isvooaxt o* y^w '^•i£ino*3JJo 9/1* ni anx£m 

9lcf£noe£9ti; ^ ax *I .ngscrl gm^oad tasjoi-g edi- 910-90 oa gnot svjsrf 

gtjsnr nggcf a^xf nox*o9qeni dcua J.i tsdt ,8on9tlv9 gn'* moil gongiglnl 

tsisvooalt n99cf 9Vi:/f iljjov/ jfjsgl sxf* ^^bw \{Tjsni:fcio tn£ Xauai; 9/1* nx 

ax gtg/f* *j3r[* .noinlqo lo 9ijs gW .Jb9*ngv9Tq ^cfgigxl* ^f1i;(;^x 8x1* Laa 

no *Tuoo 9/f* lo ■gdttni'x 9rf* lol 8on9£)iv9 sxf* nl aiajsd *nolomiJa £ 

t97i9 *iuoo 9rf* *j3/i* ,l;8i3n9*noo ai *I .aoirggxlggn lo nox*a9xfp gxf* 

0+ jllB/fgrf xrwo axrf nl aa9n*xw js 3jsw oxfw sgllgqq^ 9x1* gnlwolljs nl 

tnuo^.-e 9xf* gnxHTsonoo 8nox*s90p tXtoi*o9Q:fo 8**n£lX9qq£ i9vo T9wan£ 

8al,5*noo 9nox*agi;p grf* *-srf* £9*exenx ai *i .gausogo' ,39g£ai£^ aixf lo 

rroi*a9Jjp srf* no tgigtxanoo scT o* tn9*9qmoo *on sis rfoi/fw e*ngin9Xg giaos 

91B doirfw nox*a8x;p grf* ai a*n9m9Xe s/f* o* nox*Xi3Jb£ ni ^agg^must lo 

-rroo airf* o* isviBn£ *n9loxllx;a £ ax *I .tgiglXanoo gcf o* igqoTq 

no noi*89np srf* o* gfc^m a^w rfoxrfw noltosldo g/f* *£xf* ,nox*ng* 

Ycf XsmljsXo won eJngmgXg 9xf* iLnuor-g sxcl* no *on asit ^l^itt 9ri* 

£9*nxoq ngscf gV'^xf tXworfw ,nox*asijp 9/1* nx Y-i^^s^Joiqmx 9d o* Xgonuoo 

r+ fni;*ioqqo n^ *t.uoo Xsii* 9xf* 9vxg o* bjs oe ,*ixf00 Ijntit 9/f* o* *0O 

0* v*lrixr*rroqqo tn-B ggXXgqqjs 9Vi^ o* tnjs nox*-09{;cfo 9/1* no gXxJi o* 

eri-^ ni 8*n9m9X9 9Xcfjsnol*o9(;cfo 9/f* tuo ■§.atv£Ql aoitaeup aid Instas 

noi*o9j;-o ^^^ ^^^^ -pntvsd woH \fc9ni:£*aija 9T9w noX*o9(.cfo g/f* ga^o 

in the court below, it cannot now be consiiered c.,s a ground for 
reversal. We are of opinion, thc.t the profif concerning the carn- 
ages which the record discloses is substantially within the lim- 
ItationB fixed by this court in the previous opinion, ani is leg^ 
ally sufficient to sustain the amount found by the court. The 
record does not disclose any reversible error, and the judgment 
is therefore affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 


TO*!: bauofg - - eiisnoo 9cf re- toxinjeo ti twolao oIjl/oo arfcf ni 

-ffijafc add- gni.Ti OiTTc ISoiq srf* icxniqo lo eijs ©W .i^a-xavei 

-mil 9£ft nir; ;fadi/B si ssaoIoexL Liooai &dt rfolriw asgj: 

-gel 8i fcn- iqo ai/oivsaq erfd- at tiuoo aid* y<^ feoxi!t BnoltB&l 

sn'T . .ttuoo Off* Ycf tasjol tnsjom^ srirf- £rxjs*ai/a o* +rrpioil^8 xlL£ 

iasm-gtul srf* tiiis ,aoats elcfisTsvsi ijn^ seoXoai. aoij Lxocez 

,bejnii^*c;3 Qtolatedt ei 

>9!iiii^l3 taeoigbisL 


SECOND DISTRICT. I ^'^^ I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court, 

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, 
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in 
the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hcx-eunto set my hand and affix the seal of 
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty. 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

(-^^ ><; 


^^ii' ■: 



Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of October, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and 
twenty, within and for the Second District of the State of 
111 inoi s : 

Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice. 
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Justice, 
CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff. 2 1 9 X»A« O O « 

BE I I REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on October 
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the 
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following, to-wi t : 





Gen. No. 6808. 



















Appeal fro-r CaTroll. 

219I.A. 637 

The f^cts in this caee appe?.r from the aver- 
ments in the pleadings and the evidence. The appellant Ethel ^. 
Pattioon obtained a decree for divorce aglinat the aopellee 
Doughlc.8 Patlison at the November Term ISll in the circuit court 
of Carroll county; anl in the decree there is a provision -or 
alimony based upon the agreement of the parties, which required 
the appellee to pay the appellant for her su-^r^ort ani the surrort 
of the minor child of the parties, Nancy, the sum of $150. CC mon- 
thly. After the entry of the decree, appellant with Nancy moved 
to California anl -took up a residence there. The appellee com- 
plied with the terms of the decree for alimony until the matters 
:.roee, which are involved in this controversy. After removing 
to Calif orni?., the appellant put Nancy into a convent school 'or 
girls at San Rafael, Calif ornai, an institution ccnlucted by the 
catholic sisters of Dominician order; and Nancy remained at this 
school for several years; and was still in the school in the year 
19J8, when the appellant came to the conclusion that Nancy was 
developing a desire to become a nun, which she thouc-ht came from 
the religious influence surrounding her. She felt th-.t this desire 
should be checked, but also concluded, that she iii not have suf- 
ficient influence over her da.ughter to check it, ani there'-ore 
called upon the appellee for his agsietance in the mat+er. Her 


.S9i:sqqA ^Jii|»Hll 

7Sa .A.IGxg 

-tsvjs <5ri* moil T.i?©qq£ ss-so ai 'o vl 3xlT 

rf,ta tn cnoiixve arft tns 8gnif)js9Xq srl:)' ni a-J-fisrn 

e-IIsqcs srft tertiia^ aoiovlfc toI seioai ^ i;9ni^*cfo noaltt^'i 

triroo * tcrotio srf* ni IXSX njisT TSCfmovoM sri^- d-js noaitt^*? e-^IriguoQ 

10': aoieiv ' fri fcnc (\'tawoo IIo:c%sO ^0 

tsTijjpsT rfoiriw 4.e9li-i-sq srf* lo ^nsnJsstSJB eAf noqij fcsa.ocf Yflomil£ 

tioarrx/B 9d& ta^ tsi. . t 99ll9qqu3 srfjf 

-noffl 00. 031 1 lo rni/B ari* ,von.sK :q sift to tlirfo 'xoninr 9i(* lo 

fcsvonr Y-neH 'tiw Ja^IIeq'q^ ,99Toc y*^*^© ©ri* TSd'^A .Ylxl;t 

-fcoo ssIIsqqjB erfT .3T9n'd" goaQbiesi: : qx/ :ioo* £n^ -slmollI-sO 0* 

Bt9tdrjs/r 9rf:f' Ix.tnu ^{nomJ:X.s toI ssaosL 9rit 1:0 aaiiet 8;iJ d&iv fcgJtXq 

"^atvosti^n Ts^f'+A ."{at^voi&no-: ^vXovnx 6iJ3 ifoXriw ,9901^3 

lol Xoorfoe ^nrsvrxoo :; otni ^oajsTl Suq l-n-sXXaqq^ silr^ ,,iim.o!l:iX£0 o;f 

£r ^^oi/txioo notJt/txd-eni: to'iiX.sO ,X9£^fiH n^g *5 aXiXg 

Pi .ai^ingT Y^nsU tas [labio n^sioxnimoG ^o aretB tsi ciXorfcfao 

iJ59if 9iiJ nx I'oorfoa 9:1* nx IXiJ*^ .^ Lsre^s^ 10* Xooxloa 

sj?w YonjsK tiisrfd" noiexiXonoo 9ri* o* sinao JnjsXXsqqjs eiit asdv «8X6X 

t 9rfe rioiriw .nun £ aiaoogtf o* sixsgjc s. 5nXqoX9V9Jb 

. .iltnxroTTue sonsixl^ai ex/oxgiXga srf* 

-'tx/8 sv.'Bff j-on til riJ ,i.atx;Xonoo oeXjj ti/c' ,t33[p3rfo 9d fcXx/oria 

eTo':9T9/^t taii «^i ioarfo od- latiii^sib isxf isvo songuXtni tngioil 

TsH .«»:*J^BJ 9rf* xil son^.+ai:8RJS exxl to^ 99Xl9qqj: srf?- rroqxx i-aXX£0 


viev/s on this subject at that tine were particularly state! in 

a letter which she wrote to the appellee on June 14th, 1916' 

and which is as follows: 

DQjiT Douglas: 

I would not write to you 
now if I did not so earnestly desire what will be best 
for Nancy's welfare and I hope you will read this 
letter in the spirit I write it, with no other thought 
except for that will be best for Nancy and whatever 
you decide I shall try to feel will work out for her 

In the first place I wan+ to say someti^intp 
in regurd to my relations with Nancy. I know now, 
in looking back, I have never given N?,ncy the tender 
mother love which a child h?.s the right to expect ^nd 
wliich most chilired get. phe was never first with me. 
I been absolutely and utterly selfish all 
of my life I can remember ai-out, and it has only been 
la-^ely I h..vre begun to realize understandingly what a 
useless wasted life I have led. 

When I put Nancy in the convent T shirked 
the responsibility of trying to cure myself with un- 
failing love her tendencies towards dishonesty and 

It is true I expected to live with her e- "ter 
her year in the convent, but by that time, she had 
grown to love the peace she found there ani which had 
never been with rae in my asaociation with any one, and 
she refused to live with me, saying she would write to 
you to go under supervision if I did not allow her to 
go back. Each succeeding year, even when she came 
back fro'n Frpeport she has held this same thre-.t over 
me, and I, (thinking I was too sick and wretched to 
v/ork, ani too Irzy to ecirn my own living in the only 
ways open to untrained labor ( if she did take th^t 
course allowed her to go back. 

Now as to the result, which I -lone am re- 
sponsible for. There is ^ Sister Mercedes whom N.^,ncy 
loves ani respects beyond all people. She does not 
love either you or I. 9he did but she feels we h^ ve 
both failed her, and she is no longer a child who ioes 
not unlerst-nd. cister Mercedes gave her the attention, 
care and love, her ppor baby heart was so hionry for, 
N- ncy h: e gr-dueted with the hie-heet honors in the 
school and she is gifted beyoni'mos^ girls. As Joan 
E Arc, she gave a simply marvftlous presentation. The 
sisters all realize her gifts ani her brain, as do the 
priests who are always about the convent. It made my 
heart sick to see them with Nancy the day she graduated. 

Nancy at first refused to speni this vacation 
with me altliough she knew I had been very sick in a 
sanitarium ani had just come from there. She said she 
wanted to stajr at the convent. 

. r,^ o^ 4. r, ^^® ^^ abBclutGly influenoei by the eietere 
c^nd Sister Raymond, the sister superior, told her to 
come to me after I had saii I would sned Nancy back for 


rri teisfB y* 319w Qn.ii- iadt i& tQ9l(SuB elrl* no a:73l 

iSLQL ^dt^l souL no eslleqq. J ^:^o^?^ aria n'oixlw tad^sl 

rswcIXo-i aa ai rfoirftr ttt 

. L-gUOd T-cSQ 

jjOTf oJ -.iiA ton Llijo .' - 

tsarf 9cf CXiw J^riw aiiasi) '^IJsemria oa toa fcii? I "it won 

aM* fc.esT Iliw uoy scjorl I fcn>3 stjsIIsw e^Yo^-^^^ 10^ 

:frfg0Oif# asrfd-o on rfdriw ^&l etiiw I Jitiqa au;t ai ^atiQl 

Teveit^w Jcnjs Yon-sW tot iaed ad Iliw t^rf* loz Jqsoxs 

isrf Tol >t0o iaow Iliw Xes^ 0* Yi* IX^rfa I oLloab ijox 

5nxff:f-©ino8 y-^s o* :^~l"■.7•' I ao.pXq itaail: 8ii:t nl 

,won won:^' I .yonaH ritiw enoxj^Xsrt ifffi ot Li -.-gai at 

xebaei srit vca^VS. navig 19 van avsil I ,^0.30' gnliooX ni 

fcn^ toaqxa o' -^-'-^-r sdf ead bitdo js rioirfw svoX r^dtom 

. sra d&iv! .tar: " ei:w srf? • ^©3 iisit-Iiffc cfeoas xfoiiiw 

XXfi" ritii 'x -:-: ^iTstiis fcfljB Ylot0Xo3Cj^ nascf av^if I 

rrssd ifXno aj?rf ti^irnjs iiuo^n^ isdresiasi njso I a'iiX yiai I0 

.2 J£f^- ■-•-•--••■—-- 3ijni; asiXsei c:^ migacf awr.jri I yXs^^js'X 

.1)3X 9V.c:i I sxil ba^BSiHi eaaXasM 
Xeiltifi; -uvuuc ^^ic^■ ni xcasM fuq, I nedW 

-nu rfd-iw "iXsaYm sijjo 0* ■gaix'^i' '10 ij^-iXlcfiaaoqaai srft 
— - ".^sanodaJti; Bbrswot aetoasLna.t isd svoX :qaiIJ|j;^ 

. e s 9 aXiiltii J"i;i tm; 
• -vJtl 0* fcatosqxa I ai/tj- ai tl 

,Bmii iBd& ^d :tycf ,Jii3Y£ioo sai'J xti t«»9X t:©^ 

L /. , V-. as aredt bauol eda aojsaq tjrft avoX o* iiwoTg 

tn^ ,9no xa£ riJXw noXt^looeajs x^^ ni 931 ilj-xf* .la^cf lavan 

oi etXiw £X0ow arfa gnJ:\f-^8 ,6m rftiw aviX ot X)eex;i9a arfa 

0* tad yioLLi-: ton bib I 11 noiaivisque laroju og Oif woy 

affl.-o arfa narfw rtsva ,^59^ gnlfcaaoc:'' '- '^. .jIo-scT og 

levo :^ -aTrid- aaf-^e airft cXan e^rf ads i" r.iotl Jtox^J 

ot terfoJaiw Jbn£ i'oia oot a^^w I gfixji;;.> j; ,1 .bns ,o(n 

TfXno sri* ax. gatvil nwo ym nxisa o? ^s -X oo;f ifl£ ,iTOw 

.i.,.r> ...f...^ c, tt. ... -i \..„,.r,j /^90jtj5x*njj ot naqo a^-BW 

ca ot xarf fcsT?oXXj3 asTi/oo 

YonAW fflorfw safcaoiaM lOtsiS .-: el aiadT .not aXdienoqa 

ton eaoi; adB .aLqoaq Lis. bao^ed e&oacBai bnj^ savoX 

av^'d 9w sXaal sde tud bib ad's .1 10 uox ladtla avoX 

89cX or'r,' bXirfo JB TagnoX on ai ade ba^ ^tad ball^l xftod 

,noitnsttj3 ©rft Tarf sv-s^ p.stsoiaM rretein .Jin-^te'iaJcnu ion 

,Tot Y'lff^^ O"? - ■•• ""■ 3d Yo'fi'cf Topq T~ ' —-^X fcri^ aT.;o 

exft ni 8Tonc td adf iltiw t? a-sn Yon->H 

n.fSoL aA .eXtig -.-.v . LnoYScT Latlig -.^ »iif i:n-' Xoorfce 

srf? .ffoit^tnaaaiq aJJoXSvi^m YXcpaXa a ov^^ £-u'£ ,01.1' Q 

erft ofc ex3 ,ni;oTC lerf X nj3 8;^?..^^ T9:f asiX-aat XXji eietaxe 

\m afcjsm tl .tnsvnoo srit tjjotf^ sy^^wX^ ai£ oxlw steaiTq 

*i5et-s0f:.Gis aria 'isb adf YcajsK rftiw taad& asa ot :!foJte tisarf 

noiteoBV 0ld& baaqe ot fcseulsi iBiil t.s yo^-^^ 

£ fll ^oiB ytav naacf is.'srf I w?n>i' arfa rf-gxroiltXjs am rfi'iw 
e:fa ttsa adP. .eisdt moil enjoo taur Lijij'~Xnvi ou/xiiitlfl^e 

.tnevnoo adt ts Tfjsta ot £.9tni:w 
aiataXe a.'ft yd I sonex/X'i^ni YXotuXoatf^ ai eJB 

ot tarf tXot iioxiaqua istele arit ,fcnomY>sH i9tai8 fJn^ 

10'*. 3tc.3<f YonJs'K fcane i)X0ow I Jbljsa b£d I Tatljs aoi ot amoo 


this coming year. I said it to gain time - Sinter Fay- 
mond had brought her to see me at the sanitarium ?.nd 
Nancy had told me she intended to go back +o Dominican 
another year and to become -.. nun. 

It is a generally understood thing among the 
sisters, priests and girls at the school that Nancy 
is to become -i. nun. It is not the mree fancy o-^ a 
child, '..a this desire 60 often is, with convent girls, 
but it is Nancy's true ain anbition. I would not 
feel adverse to her going to the school another year and 
of her becoming a Crtholic, for she could be just aa 
good £. Cafl.olic as a Protestant woman, but it is the 
knowledge of what .another year or two there will do in 
strsnghtening her deterrrination to become a sister and 
her never having knovm any good or real happiness be- 
yond that found within the reetrictel life of th3 cloister. 

She has never hai a chance to know by compari- 
son with healthy girlish happiness if ahe wouli still 
choose what is at best the unnaturs.l way of living the 
sisters have, although they are lovely, gooi women and 
have taught Nancy all that she herself knows of f^ooiness 
but I want her to h?-ve the chance. I want to get her 
away from their absorbing influence and let her get cut 
among girls who live normal lives, and if, after hav- 
ing experienced that, and it is yours and- my duty to see 
that she does, if then she with more mature knowledge 
and her own uninfluenced mind wishes to join thr order 
she will do so with a ole'.rer perception of what it will 

A year ago a fresh water coilege cour'ie of 
three years was added to the convent. You will notice 
in the Wear Book there was but one graudate. Nancy, in 
addition to her four years of high school work, has done 
one year of that course, oistcr Raymond wants her to 
come back to finish but Dcugla? that is not the real 
reason. The real reason is this: In two years' time 
Nancy will be eighteen and by law her own mistress and 
tlie Sisters and zealous priests want to make a nun out 
of this brilliant girl for the glory of their own church. 

Sister Mercedes who is the teacher of litera- 
ture is a rerrarkable woman of great strength anl per- 
sonality, and 'Hhe believes im licity that Nancy has 
genius, not talent, but geniuf, for writing •■. nd in the 
Dominci£i.n Order a nun is allov/ed to write. I sent you 
her poen in last year's book. Do you not see how dif- 
ferent in thought and spirit her power in this year's 
book is and yet I feel thct her first ie more true poetry, 
the second is a desire to write for the church. 

A few days ago I found a letter from sister 
Merceded, she and Nancy wtite to each other every day, 
but Nancy does not want me to know it, rnd she nevr»r ' 
says she reoeives a letter, she treats me as a toler- 
ated stranger but I feel it is what I deserve. 

In this letter which was full of love and 
praise, she told Nancy that this coming year she vyould 
personally instruct her in the true faith and that at 
the end or during the year her happiest day would be 
when Nancy became a Catholic. 

Nancy for a year now has told me she e;cpected 
to become a nun. <"he has a rosary and says she prays to 
saints and is simply inoculated with the Catlio"+ic religion 
- and intends to join their church this coming year. She 
has already mads retreats. I have found her reference 
and schedule of them full of two weeks of long fasting and 


trti^ mut-i-fi.:- 


ir 'on/; Ic 

. T ? ■* ; 

vrtJf ?71 

Tiroo e^sX; 

,.;9Cf OJ" 8l 

3aiovfc-= l9Sl 


. 'e 


:'. tiK no8 
■" .•>aoorfo 

I Jud 

...... ;,Xli 

erie JiiifJ 

■ f^ri tn.3 

-T 9 fie 



r^;9X A 

)- - • 

ilsd s 


f-f , -i - 

■ -"^'TB-g 



... ..jrf 

;i .tnotrsi 

" t :too6 





3d o;t 

'Tll.L p. 

-tnits*^ gni 

iijjl merit io oXuceifoB cnja 

paro.yer and she at th£.t time fourteen ani fifteen years eld. 

The lay of commencement I met a woman, a Mra. 
Sterly who is an intelli§-;ent woman. ^he used to be 
on a newspaper in New York, c-he has two daughters in 
the convent, ani for a time jhe lived in the^convent 
herself - in order tc t:.y.e a course from ?ist--r Mercedes 
ani she likes the echcol ani the nuns, but this is Tvhat 
she said - "Mrs. Pr.ttison, are you goinp to alio?' Nancy 
to come back next year, " I s.-.ii Nancy wantei to. ANd she 
said, "Oh what a wrsted lost life if you dont get 
her away fro.r. this narrow nunnery. J^he has the Tost 
promising mind and the most ability of any girl I have 
ever known, and I have le;rned to know Nancy very well. 
All her promise will become simply an expree9ion of the 
C-. tholio faith, for if she at:=y?. hers the sisters will 
make her a Catholic and a nun ani that means her f^ift 
o" writing will be turnei to theri own use - What Nancy 
needs is a big free aJiool where her mind and character 
will develop so that these wonderful gifts she possesses 
may be turned into broader channels - than simply writ- 
ing Catholio tracts ani for their own periodicals." 

If you wii: only realize how I feel about 
everything. Nancy has never had a real chf.nce, neither 
you nor I ever gs-ve it to her. We have given her 
things, ani paid her rills, but after all that ia all - 
I do not know if you will take the trouble to ev=r read 
this letter, but there is a grr-ve responsibility ras- 
ing about us. I at last realize it, I hope it will be 
in your heart to c.lso realize it. Is Nancy's ycung 
almost unfelt life to be swallowei up in the life of 
this convent and the ^uture life of the aisterhocd? 
That is what her going oack will mean because slie is as 
plastic as soft clay in the hands of these v/cmen she loves 
kscxh and trusts so m.uch. Is this going to happer without 
her having a chance for something different. 

If she wouii go to a college in the e^.s-^ away 
from this influence altogether for fear years ( and she 
would pass any examination for entrance) then at the end 
of that time when she is t7;enty-pne if she still desires 
to becom.e a Catholic an 1 a nun she will at least have 
had a chance of knowing something besides the li-^'e of 
theoonvent. .She thinks, poor chili, that the only 
peace ani h' ppiness she wants is to be found there - She 
judges other life as she has founi it when 'hert? was 
the discord which w:' s in her early home. 

Now this i3 whe.t I hope you will lo. If 
you will snei Kidney to Smith or ^fellsly or some deTiocratic 
college not in a city ".'here the Catholic influence would 
be more apt tc follow her, and where you will bo re.-i.son- 
ably sure she would not be aporoachei by the priests, and 
the day o: commencement the place was filled witli priests 
ani they all me ie so much of Hancy, even Aroh Bishop Henna 
had a private talk with her. Nancy thought it an honor 
but I B?.w in it as she told me of it, his method of plant- 
ing his desire for her corvereion in her rr.ini. If you 
will send her to some college I will never ask you for 
any more money after she is st-trtel in college ani I 
will sign a paper to that effect. I amke only one 
stipulation and that is that I may help in the selec- 
tion of the school, the school to be within the means 
you are able to accord, and I first of all desire Smith, 
then Wellesly. 

I have never wantei to come back to Freeoort 





o ax - ixQfeiaii 

^'Cr"^ ^fiiW^ 19rf 

:a:- lev© 
.-r;; ^eri Zlk 

^ si ei'9sn 

tSVQ I Ton uo^ 
ob I 



^ -i A Ij X 

c '^. -: i: r 


•* fc ti£ 


:iG I :tucf 





vx^rf I 

but it hc-e 8':ea.ei lately as if that wt.9 all I coull do, 
and although I ires.! it I will come back and live with 
my mother. I will sew and I know I cv.n earn enough to 
ke^p me. I 7/ill never by any work or deed s?.y or do 
?-nything to re'lect on you or yours 'r.nd T will live 
quietly and hopefully - It has t?.ken much su^ferinc 
and I wouli nevertell what agony of mind to brinR'''^o 
this , but at last the mother in me is more than any- 
thing else in the world and I want my child to h'-ive her 
chance. If you do this, if you write and say that 
you will not consent to her 'oing b-;.ck another year, that 
you hr;ve other pltna for her, Nancy will refuse to leave 
and great pressure .vill, I think be brought to beer ■''rom 
the sisters and possibly some of the priests for they 
are determined to have her, but she is as yet only sixteen 
and as a lawyer you would know what to do and in two years 
in a normal healthy atmosphere she may change. Dcminicain 
opens the 8th o:^ Aug. and Nancy is going back by the lat 
she says. Watever is done should be done by then. I 
have not nor v;ill I tell her of this letter for she must 
not be antagonized any more than I can help. 

Sister Raymond toll me once that afte-^ Nancy 
had finished the college course at Dominican she wanted 
her to take a course at Berkely, but I feel pretty cer- 
tain this Wc s wha* V7-3 in the minis o:" Sister Mercedes 
and Sister Raymond. 

"At the end o" next year N".ncy will have joined 
the Catholic Church. She will be seventeen, nearly 
eighteen. If her father and her mother (who does not 
count ( refuse to let her come back it will only be a 
short time before she will, be eighteen and can choose 
for herself. If an eduorition under our (sister's) in- 
fluence is not available she can enter the noviate when 
she is eighteen. On the other hand after a few more years 
here she will have ^joined the chxirch and will be so filled- 
with the Catholic faith that we would trust her for a 
course at Berkely when she would be close to our influ- 
ence, for the more education she acquires if it is plant- 
ed upon her belief in the Gatholie religion the more it 
will become here as a nun. 

T. do not want her to go to Berkeley or St=:inford 
for she would still be iinder their influence out here. 
By this alone you oxight to knov, that for the first time 
I have an unselfish interest for Nancy's good alone, for 
if she stayed out here I would perhaps come back and I 
love California. 

Elizabeth Crein is going to Smith this fall. 
She is a whole som.e minded girl and I wish N-ncy could 
go there. I think liargaret Willis Pierson might be 
able to get her in when perhaps others "i.ight fall through 
her lateapplication. Even if she does not go to school 
for another ^'ear I do hope you insist that she does 
not return to the convent and we will spend the year 
in Freeport or wherever you say, but I do not feel 
Nancy could be happy in Frc-'^ort or with me. If you 
consent or think of anything better I will be so willing 
to do under your guidance anything you think beat. 
I wish you would write me and if you take this course 
of refusing to let her go back Nancy ani I could come 
back to Fre'iport in the late sumT:er and I wii: abide 
by whateveryou decide and will never intruie on you 
in any way afterwe.ris* 


,oi: tluoo I lis 3..n7 o'^dcf 'li .-, I ts.nora a^d &1 tud 

rftiw evil ijix..- io£o' 5IB00 llx^ ^ -■> i..;eTfc I ilstforf*l£ fcrrjs 

o^ si-guoDS arsQ njio I wofx^f I txra wse iXi% I .lailcfoai. iicm 

ob 10 ^SR i-sefc TO iioipr Y^-^ 'C^^ lev - r ' -^ I .©<« q^ai 

©vil J'l ^A- T ia.t STj^OY -xo uo^ no u.! snJtii^tfl-'' 

'fid ot Laim "to yn: Lajjow I icjs 

"V. . ;; rft sTom ei sm ni i^.- v. ui .• e.:.j. ijB tud ^ exrit 

tsif'sv.ri o^ bxtdo y-'' *^^w I i.rf... tlxois Sii>t iii aeXs gxiixit 

' 't v,r^B ttt^ e;^iiw jjcy '^- texil* ot jjoy II .«p£U-i{o 

Jjsr TSrf*on£ :jfoj d S'^^^Oo ''^■- *^* cfneanco rfo« XlJtw uov 

ev. ='x c: esii-cT IIIw '{Oii^-K <t©x1 lol en~Iq tsdjo ev^-ri uox 

mci^ iJfecT or -d-puoid ad inxifJ- I »IXiw ^lusseiq ;fj=sig i>nii 

^ferf^ TO^: e^asliq erfrf- lo Qnrog Y-^cf-taaoq tas ate^feia axf^t 

rr98i"xie Y-Cflo tSY 8£ el erfe *ifqf ^ted av^rl o^ Isnimisrf'sJb 0i£ 

a^-'?9Y o^* /li i:;n£ ofc o^ J.rffw T^ornf tl;-' " — -.7£i ^ aos Laj3 

al^oLtttaod .e^ix^rfo y-scb dJe siaxlqec L^isaxoa & as. 

tfel erf+ ^d 7i'o£d "^aiori ei yoxi-sH tn.- -31.'-^ : ;:c*'8 3ri;f anaqo 

I .xisn'* Y*^ eaot acf biuoda snot si tavs.+ =W .e^^a 9de 

tai/in erfa ^o^t tetfel atdt 10 i9:I liet I IXiw ion ton sv^ri 

.qlsff rtio I niiifJ sxom ^^^ basiaQi-^jstriJ^ ad j-on 

Ycn.?TI -'-etlir, isdi sotto &m i.Xo.+ i: aoaxf.P. le^siS 

fcerxi^w sifa n^olnimoQ rt^ aaii/oo sgsXXoo adit ijsrisinx^ t^ 

-leo ',:*^siq Iee!t I *urf ,vXe:^if/a a.s saTi/oo ^ fi2i.6;f o^ tsd 

ssbsotsU TstetB Jo eixrim Sii* nx g.-^w tjsdw 3.sw a in* nxa* 

.l5nc •" '^ .:-378i3 Las 
benzol ' ^^ xoaslS. i&ex :fX8x: "^-o Jbne ecfit 

■;-iTj-en ,n:99tn9V98 9rf XXivr silB .aoix/r:. r,ix.oiit.^ 3x:'t 

ton 89ot oriw) ted&ota rer. La^ led^st xad II .aeatd-gta 

js 9d Y-^^c IXiw it -]loj^d srr^cc isri ^sX ot 86x;'>'^i ) tnuoo 

(Paooilo aao txi.B nsaW^is -SiJ ilxw ©rie sio'iad omti tTi^odS' 

-tti {e*reiata) tuo i^basj noti.ioube n.; 1:1 ."iXsRierf lol 

aoiiv striven 8j:i* te&ae n/io oila sidBli^v^ ton ai sonaxfll 

8:t£9Y siorr. wel js ist"^^ in^ri larfto exit nO .nsstrfj^xs ax arie 

-fcslli^ oa 90' IXiw tfl3 doii/ric axiJ tsnioQ svjsrf iXiy/ aria axerf 

3 To'i "lerf r^euat tluov sw tirfft i-fti£^ oiXoift-^0 srit dtiw 

-i/Ilni Tijo ot asoXo sd bluov ede naxlw YXs^fieS t£ aaiuoo 

-tflfiXq ei tX "^i seixxrpois srfa nott^oxrfce stofn exft :rol .sens 

*1 010m 9dt aoi-gil^i: eXXoa'tjsO erft nl 'laiXocf -taxi noqx; ta 

. : ..-: £ 8.3 9Teff e.ffiooao' ""':■- 
ijio^nstB TO YsXei'isQ ot os ot ■ ton ot I 

.eiarl tuo sonat/XIrni •ii9D+ :-: lu; sd Llt:te IXuow axi? -lo : 

smit tsrrJ:'? 9rf:t xot tjsrlt woni ot tifQjJo uoy shoXj:. eixft y3 

-icl ,9noX.s fccog a'YoneVf 10I te?istnl ifaiiXsemj n^ evad I 

I rn^ jfosd amoo aqBJiiaq tluov/ I aiaxl tuo r>©Y -■''■a ©^e "it 

.jBintEoliXjsD svoX 
.XX£l eixlt xftimB ot anxog fix nx-saO xJtocf«s.tX3 

JtXx;oo Y^n-"-F rfeiw I f HjS I ' amoaaXoiiw £ ax ari3 

sd tjjgxw iioeiex^ el II: ' :M'nlXit I .oierft 03 

d-^ucxclf L1.b\ r^xi-yxin Ptarfto e-;;-; ce;: r' :v ni larf tag ot sXd£ 

Xoonoa ct o§ ton aeoJb ^xfe "ix aevU .nolteolXqqi^ et^X lerf 

B90f; srfe t^nt rielani xjoy sqoxf ct I --i.-rsY iQxf+on.; to?: 

isBY srf* tnaqe IX Iw sVf tn^ tnavnoo erft ot nTutaT ton 

Xes^ foa ot I tyd ,Y-~=e ~o^ TsvsTs/fw to tToqpsT*? ni 

x/oY "il 'Sta r'tlw to tT0''?9T'? ni Y'?'?-=^ 3'^ tXixoo xda^Vi 

:QniIXtw OS 9d III"' I T'' ' ' ' "o .■'xili'-'- to tnaenoo 

.tasd jfnlxlt uoy <- 'a "ixroY latnx/ ot ot 

93'xuoo ain't 9i£'t uox x .> n.j ;-<;T: r.. itw tXx;ow ucY rfalw I 

90'^oc tluoo I ttm \conx5H icjid. og Ten teX ot snleu^eT to 

stl-'js ;XlT7 I tas Ta-^mira 9t£X arft nl tioqr^aT'i ot io^d 

0OY no atxfTtnl Tevan XXlw tnjE atloet uoY^svat^rfw Y^f 

I only want what will be for Nancy's ultimate 
happiness and beat interests, I know N'-mcy's ani my 
life may always continue ap-art and I look forward to a 
great deal of iisap.'^ointment ani he-/.rt ache but I know 
that I will the courage to keep on for I think 
only of Tia-ncy* Won't you please write to me and tell 
me that you will aee th. t Nancy doe« not go back? 


Ethel Pa^tiaon. 
June 14th, 1918. 

About the aame time she wrote the le-t-ter to the 
appellee, the appellant wrote another letter of similar im- 
port to Urc. Jennie Kryder, appellee's sister, who resided 
in California; and this letter contrins substantially the 
same thoughts and fears concerning Nancy; and in connection 
therewith also contains certain statements concerning the 
matter of alimony. 

The appellee did not receive appellant's letter 
until July 15th following, but immediatedly concurred in her 
suggestions about taking N^ncy out of the sisters' school; 
and wrote to the appellant to that effect; in this letter 
he stated, that he thought they could come to some understand- 
ing about sending her to Smith's college, and asked her to 
wire him if she was still in the same frame of mind as when 
she wrote the letter. Upon receipt of this letter from 
appellee, the appellant wired him, that she was still in the 
same frome O"^ mind; and thereupon appellee wrote another 
letter to the appellant, in vThich he stated among other things, 
that he had received her y;ire, and that he ahi just written 
Nancy telling her that he hai deciled to send her to Smith 
College, because he thought that Smith College was a bette-^ 
school for her than the just organize! junior college at 
San Rafcel could possibly be; and that he expected her to 
come east in two or three weeks at the longest; that he 
had also vrritten the Dorainician College at San Bafael, that 
Nancy 'vould not return there because he was goinp^ to send 
lier to Smith College. He also st-Atei, in thfe* letter, that 
if he could not get Nancy into Smith College, he v'ould try 

■to get her into Vassar or Wellesly; and assured ^-^ e appel- 


Qt.-tniflij e'Yone'^ lol ecf Xliw &£dn tasw ^Ino I 

j3 0* I:t>:«i?'* :^o?I T fcn^ i"i- q^s sunij-noo h^^wXjs ^.ara sill 

.Oiei .nJi^X 9/ujL 

^/^^ toTff sila ©fflii* sfliJBa 9dt tuodk 

^:^bL i^d&oaa etotw &n.all.9qq£ exfo ,s3li8qq£ 
Jbsl :f , Je a'8yi.r3qq,fi ^ist^fiX siiinaL .33M oc^ tioq 

aox-foQcinoo nl bas ;^on£T! sninidonoo ai£9l tajs aid-gUQcii smsa 

• YfioiEil^; 10 igtd'fim 
•ret;t9l a' iasli9qq£ 9vl809i ton fcjLt esllsqq^ sdT 
T»rf nl £>9Ti»ortoo vI^e.ti;t^9(:nmt *uc' ,-QniwoIIo- xiJSI ^lul, Xid-m; 

iXoorrc. ' - - ;n ^uoci£ anoiiteggsua 

-j5~-tQX ei<;\i- fix j#09l1:« ,+j3ri* o# JnjsXXgqq.^; 9rf;t ot Sitoiw tn£ 

-i.rr^te*rofcni/ oftoe ot sfnoc yerfcf Jrf^ijo /jxfi' ttet&ta ad 

ot TSf^ f?«3{aA btt^ .g-gelfoc e'rittis?? c;t T9rl -^aitase iuodjs gxxl 

.11*8 e£W sda i:l aid gilw 
rr-T*^ Te-t+sX R : t.Tiaosi noqU .tottel sdt atoir ede 

:.d tejlw tn«XXoqq£ zdi ,99Xl9qqjB 

I'id' y- aocuorsdf Las ibaiia I0 emcal gnusa 

ta^nxrt '<-8;"f+o sno3!£ \ I xfoirfw ni ttrr-sXXeqq^ srft ot letJaX 

xi9*tiir,' teuQ tilr. eil J.-rf?- Jbn£ ,9Tiw led tsvX8.09a tad ed t^d& 

ff^/irr-: o' i9xf Jbnr- isd sulXXe* yo^^^^ 

"St -Tf 9g9i;.oO rl.tx.T!3 t^xl;!' td-guodi 9d eauBOed j^e'gelLoO 

t-s e-g^iloo loiaui tasxnij^io tai/j; «riJ a^dt leri lo^ Xooxfoa 

at 19:: tetoeqxe : jcf Y-tcfieaoq felyoo Xajal^fl aji8 

srf tJsrf^ ;t£9giioX &is&ff 99Tr:- -9 9moo 

tiSri* .XealjsH iisB tos sgsXXoO ajsioiciaoQ Bd* aattirrr oeis tsd 

tnee ot vnxog 8£w 9rf esif.-oscf eisrft niut9T toa tluo^v \{on£lI 

tjscft ,T9t*9X iirit ni ,t9t£ta osXjb sH .gggXIoO dtircB ot isd 

Yit ^Xuow 9rf .9391X00 ntXmS otni yon^W teg ton tXuoo edit 

lant thi^t he would charge of Nanc^' and would pay all her 
expenses; and thet in addition to this he would pay the 
appellant |:50.00 per nonth, and that Nancy should be started 
east as soon aa possible. At the close of the letter, he 
makes the following statement! "My financial resourcer; are 
about strained to tlie breaking po'nt on account of the war, 
but I am satisfied that ray sisters will help me out i-^ nec- 
essary, as the matter concerns Nancy's welfare so ira^^ortantly. 
I have written them today something of the matter/ However I 
feel no mD.tter what happens, we must get her out of this.* 
Efforts were made to get Nancy into Smith college, anl Wellesly 
and Vasaar, which were of no avail; and arrangement was finally 
perfected by which Nancy wae sent to Bsrkely, a protestant 
school in California; and Nancy spend a year at this school. 
After that she returndd to Freeoort with the appellant and then 
went to reside with her father; and he sent her to the Wisconsin 
University to complete her education. Appellant claims, that 
sending Nancy +o Wisconsin University was without her consetftf 
but Nancy testified, when she t-.lked with her mother about the 
matter, that she me,de no objection tliereto. The principal 
objection which the appellant afterv/ards urged was, that she 
did not like c©-c ducat ional schools. The appellee testified, 
that he ht d expended at least C 900. 00, to procure for N?.ncy 
suitable and pretty clothes, and for school expenses, ani for 
Nancy's maintenance after she had come to live with him, in 
Oc-:ober 1919. the became of age October 9th, 1919; ifter 
finiahBiing her education at the University of Wisconsin, she 
returned to the home of her father and has continued to r3."?ide 
with him sinoe thi.t time. In Februi;ry 1930 the e.ppellant 
filed a petition in ■♦^he circuit court of Cacroll county a- 
gainst the appellee for a rule tc show cause why he should not 
be held in contempt of court for fj iiing to ibay the tlSO.OO 
per month provided in the decree in the divorce proceedings. 


red EXs ^ 







I T?V^ 


n^ ■ 

"■•■"■ ■^ 'rr^I 

' wieqq^ 
. .■ijlaaaci ^jj .roos 3^3 

. '- t:jo<SB 

l&d Iliv sx.a .:cr»3a air»3 T v0cf 

' ajeH exiiscnco 'iscr^jSia sifj ex jyiaeas 

hot pssrft iie^d-lTw 8VB:f I 

tjsdv latt'^.T? ■-:^n leal: 

-'■r riclrfw ,'XPBa.sV bn^ 

,:>a^ll irt«s jijitncoliljiO at loorloa 

■ '■ - : tP3t o:t ^fnsw 

iflU nianooeiW o' ^isa-sH gnii^noa 

roasU iud 


oa tit 

yj.QZ.2; ;^ii.v3 tv^ Oil t&dt 

-itiatq <sthja 

■ ,^ " oO 

:v-iri.- ■, :tsii:' ial'i. 


♦ 3ani£!daooiL^ soiovii: sxio 

vv salleqqfi erf* jtafll^a 
":: tq^^^:^flOO aX tled^ 9(S 

There was a hearing upon the petition- anl at the clopje of 
the evilence taken at -^his he- ring, the court gr.v" the appellee 
leave to filel a coixnter petition 'or a reiucticn o* -^he rronth- 
ly ?.llow. nee for ^..limony; the court took account of the pay- 
aients nade by the appellee, anl the amount expended under 
the original decree, and found that there reniained due to the 
appellc-.nt under the decree, a balance of C^OC.OO at the ti^ne 
of the entry of the preBsnt decree; and required the appellee 
tc pay that amoimt ; the proviaiona of the decree oonoerning 
alimony were thereupon modified by relucine^ the amount to be 
paid to appellant to $75.00 pc month; end from this jlecree an 
appeal in prosecuted. 

It is contended by appellant, that the court improp- 
erly allowed the $900.00 credit, which w? c- for Toney expanded 
in appellee's efforts tc get Nancy to change her mind about be- 
coming a nun; a task which appellee undertook at the instance 
of appellant. It is :.lso contended, that the court improperly 
modified fhe decree by reducing the amo\jnt o- .Ij.raony. It ie 
appare.nt that the amount w]iich was originally fixed as alimony 
oontemlatod the aup ort snd maintenance of both the appellant 
and Nancy. TThen the appellc-n-*- v/as relivdd of the care and 
support of Nancy, this made a proper basis for an equitable 
readustment of the natter. The amoimt fixed by the court 
in the readjustment does not :.ppe:r to be unjust or ineqiiit lale^ 
taking into account the changed circuastances brought about ?.t 
appell-nt's instance and not only involving aidi-'-ionc-.l expend- 
itures for appellee, but relieving the appellant of m ny expend- 
itures and obligations concerning Nancy. We find no error in the 
coiirt's finding of the balance due the appellant; anl are of op- 
inion that the |900.C0 credit was properly allowed to the appellee, 

It is also contended, that the court erred in the find- 


-v;^?r ..i ,: ifiiomJtXij ao^ eoaiiwo.lij^. Y' 

' sni>S4.'ieT s" 'i" fcnjjol iiite ,s9ioefc J^aigiio erf; 

j.: ■ . " ,; scii^Xiicf 3 ,99ioai) srit istxu; cfxiAtXaqq. 

.rxi.'psi- eaexq e£i& ic \:^J^«* »rfJ^ '5:< 

£c J , ::i. . .'lifcoo noqixstarf* ©isw Yaomilj 

ajs 99^cat stt.S .'ncix in.. i;i:fni-:s sq 00.37^ 0* *fl£lXoqq.5 ot fciusc 

.ce + uo38ortq si I^sqqj 
-qoaqJdi tijjo. LQiaoiaoo ai tl 

-s<: .: 9jj£i-::o oj ';ca.:^l d-Qg o;t ed""!©!^® a'eaXIsqq^ nj 

9or:^*i:n.i 'cxffw :iBM& s imsa 3 gaimoc 

Xl'xeq. ^;.siXi3cncc ouXjb 8.- ' . -naXXeqqjB 1c 

Yhot;:. '.irfw ;tcojoai>5 sif* jfsrf:f :^C3a£qqi 

bnv; 5"~r; isXXeqq^ erijf aaiVU .xoaJsM Jbai 

-' "■ sqoT:: s Qfcism 8 iff* iTjoujsH lo d'aoqqx/e 

t^^v ; +on esot ta9m&(iiJlt~ieii 9iit al 

! : ^.K.u: IXC 1 agriiJiJo srf.t tauooo^ oiai -galUsi 

-•^ ctlvlovni yL^O: ton fcxi^ son^jd-eni B'ta^LLeqai 

-tne - - ':^ gflivaiXai iud ,8&XI©qcjs jol asni/jti 

<= ' ^ - .,...;.]! gnimsonoo anoid-jiisilcio tni; a3iu&t 

- ,. -qq£ add- eufj aonBX^cf sri* I0 sxxlinll a'rf-ujoc 

.asXXoqqjs f riieqoTiq aisw d-itsio OO.OOS^ srit Jarfd- noJtnJ 

-tnlt 9rf. •-* d-srid- .bebnadrtoo oaX^ ei dl 

ing, that the contr£.ct which the ar,peilc.nt with her 
solicitor oonoerning the fees to be paii for his ?iervice9, in 
securing t.^e alin^iony iue for appellant, "be cancellei, 'i.n3 ^re- 
viling instec.i for the payn^ent to appellant's soliciLor of the sum 
of $S25.C0 for the sErvicea rendered by appellant's solicitor rnd 
for expenses incurred. VThile it is true, th::,t the court "7"!.3 v7ith- 
out ijuriadict ion in this case to Cr.ncsl cr :t^.r6ga';e a contract be- 
tween the appellant anl her solicitor, tho solicitor not being a 
party to the suit, the court was clearly within the scope q-^ its 
powers in fixing the amount of solicitor's feey rrhich it deeired 
reasonable and just; ani the c-mcellatioTi an.l abro?;'..tiori of the 
contract must be regarded as effective so far as concBrns the 
rights and oblige.tions of the appellee and in so far as the con- 
tr; ct may conflict with the amount to be paid by him. Put it is 
a sufficient answer to appellBnt^s contention in this regn.rd to 
say, that she was not injured by this oancellaticn order, and 
hence is not in a position to ^rake it the basis for n r'jversyl of 
the decree. y.'e fini no reversible error in the record, ani the 
decree is therefore affirmed. 

Decree affirmed. 

Heard, J. took no part. 



130 j^rJnoo ^dc^ istlt ,3ni 

3SI srtj- siilnrcsbaoo icJioiloa 

-O' rOi SUt ^n -l\tT0O9C 

tr ' • ■ ^ lo 

_r;j. ansqxe lo'z 

g txua eriit o* y^xsq 

aif^ 3lc^noaB9T 

-noo eri;t o enox ^«^ strigii 

-aCO ^^H! .to =1* 

isloll^x/ia £ 

df ,^£a 

1c . 1 oonsrf 

eri+ .33T09b 9ri* 

loiaiSiit ei ssiosi) 

.x;siCTi!i%£ 99T08C 
.j-icq on ioot .L ^iaiseH 


SECOND DISTRICT. \ I. ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

in and for said Second District pf the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof. 

do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in 

the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimonv Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of 
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this I2th day of October, in the 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty. 


Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

/ u ^ f^ 


Beg-un and held, at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day/of October, 

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hund/ed and 

twenty, within and for the Second District 0/ the State 0/ 

Illinois: \ 
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres iding-Zjus t i ce . 

Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice 

Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Justice 

ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk. /2 1 9 LA. 63 7 

CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff 

BE IT REMEMBERED, >that af/erwards, to-wit: on October 
12, 1920, the opinion of t^i^' Court was filed in the 
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following-, to-wit: 

TeriE llo. 6310. 
Maude Henning, 


vg Appeal from County Court 

Peoria County 
The Hanover Fire Insurance 
Company of New York, 

Appe i lant, J. 

219I.A. est 

This is ?. suit comnienoel "by '•'.r)pellee bn ths County Court 
of Peoria County to recover upon a policy o-^ in?ur>-nce, ipnuel by 
appellant oov=;rin?y certain houaeholi -^urniturs nni tool's o^rne i by 
appellee located in a dwelling house at Canton, 111. A ^irs broke 
out in the room containing this furniture an.1 it. Appellee 
thereupon sold it, and then brought hti^ action. Thf? trial resulted 
in c. verdict ani ^udf^raent in fa.vor of appellee for $386.00, •^■^om 
which the appellant has appealed to this court. 

One of the errors assigned b" appellant is, that the 
court erred in permitting the introduction of a letter written by 
appellee's attorney, over the objection of the appellant, containing 
self serving declarations. This letter purported tc give a list of 
the articles ? lleged to have been burned, and the fair cash market 
value of the articles; and certain staterr.ents concerning the state of 
preserv ticn, in which they were found; ani that there rpre high clsss 
goods; and could not be duplic-ited in the market for 33-1/3 percent 
more than the valuation appellee had placed upon them. It also con- 
tained a statement that the adjuster for appellant haJ indica+ed to 
appellee, that her loss aaiounted to about $75 to $80. To this letter 
a reply wj.s received from appellant stating, that the m.-i-^ter of ad- 
justment had been placed in the hands of F. R. RichmonJ; ani that 


eOXSG .oil misT 

soniiitjjeni ©li'ij isvonBH ©riT 

1 Ci» 


Ycf feirr^fi ,©on-TLfeni *o '■lotloq .c iroqu i>?vooei o;t x^aisoO siioa^ lo 

\[d tearrc sioo'g tan stuttmi)'*- ILodeBUorl ats&rev j^niifvoo tasILsciqs 

...r .. _-i-- , r£T ^notc^iO ;tJ3 saifcri ^nille-wt i3 ni isitjsooX 9sll3qqjs 

;-: — 1^ r^jj extf^imir^ elrf:* ■gaial.^&troo moot erij- nl d-uo 

£9,7 :. i .,i\ .,.i).l:I-c.c el&ti lri:gi/cic' nsrf* txue ,^2 tXoa noqusierlJ 

.„...■. An nr.r^ ,..>- ^^---,,^,. '>Q ttoffi?! ni *n8«8ti/r ifl.s .toitiev - ni 

-" o* t^Z^eqas e3ti J-fi£lI»qq£ 9ri& dot Aw 

Qdt i.'.:.: ,3i ;. oengiae.s aioti9 srf* lo anO 

^jl „, + +;.-„. ^^+j.^r ... . .jfcoac^ni sil:?- gaititimTsq ai i^sias i-ujoo 

gnifti-s -.v.- . . ..-. • ; w. - fToi^ostc^o 6/1* tsvo tYs^io^^-s e'ealleqq^ 

^o fsil £ svlg ot iataoqii/q i9*t9l sirfT .Bnoi:t.3i4lo9L gnivisa 1:198 

tsiisffi da^o ii£^ 9x1* tar. ^tea-wd aasd 9v:ri o* be-^9ll.=i aaloltiJS sdt 

^0 s*-s*8 sxft 5flini9onoo a*n9.^9*'*e aijs^isc t.ajz jegloi^ts 9r{* ^o 9jjIj3V 

^^~Io rf^gxrf 91SW 9T9ri* *3rft ta£ jtfiuol 919W \c9ri* riolriw at ,noit^vi9a9T:q 

*a90i9q £\r-££ TO^ taiijeffl srf* ni bg^fcollqut sd Jon fcluoo tn^ ;e£)oog 

-aoo oelB jI .jcari* noqu Jbeoplq tsd 98lX9qq^3 aotSsulsv odt a^dt 91001 

o* b9-^j::0tt nt fcjQri tnBXXsqq^ to* i^iBUlta 6d& S^:df taemBt^&B ju teat^t 

Tet.t9X eixft oT .08$ 0* 3^$ *iJOcf£ 0* t&tiauox£, eaoX a9r{ j-£d* ,99XX9qq£ 

-fcj? lo Ter^'im Sff* tsrit ^}^attJzta ta^ilaqqe rcoiJ i9vX909i asw ^Xq9i £ 

t£.d& tas ' L ncit!."'"'^ t^ .^ .^ """ ^^f ^^'^K "■•''■"^' tl 'fir^.''-- ns«d i^ o-ngmJaifi; 

he wouli give the matter the necesaH",ry at + ention. It was insisted 
by appellee, t:mt tha letter referrei to, written by her r.ttorneys, 
was competent as a foundation for the introduction of appellant's 
reply letter. But it i3 r.pparent that the reply letter of appellant 
which referrei to the number of the policy, did not require for its 
introduDtion the self serving statements in appellee's letter; and 
it w:.r, error for the trial court to permit 3ta incroduction in evid- 
ence. Jewel Belting Co. v. Haiuilton 257 111. 338; Razor v. Razor 149, 
111. 631; O'Meara v. Cardiff Cocil Co. 154 111. App . 331, and Pr.rnett 
V. Noble 155 111. App. 13S. 

Another error urged by appellant is, that the court re- 
fused to strike out incompetent evidence upon .-notion of appellant. 
Upon her direct examination, appellee had testified about the prop- 
erty which wr.s in the roo^ at the time of the fire. Upon cross ex- 
amination it developed, that appellee had had these goods stored -.vith 
a Mrs. Walker; and after renting the house c.nerein the fire occured, 
instructed Mrs. '.7:tlker to remove the furniture into this house, and 
then -.vsnt avray on .\ visit. Appellee had never seen her property in the 
rco:.i in v?hich it wa.s stored: v7-.s not there at the time of the fire; 
and did not arrive there until four dayg after the fire. Appellant 
therefore made 'i inotion to exclude hsr evidence on that subject, be- 
cause it -.vas hearsay, which motion was denied by the courtp A party 
h; 2 a right to insist, that incompetent testimony shall be excluded; 
and whoever such testimony is admitted the court, should exclude it, 
and direct the jury to disregard it. Sailors v. Nixon - Jones Print- 
ing Cc. 30 111. App. 515; Wickenkamp v. Tickenkamp 77 111. 92; C. P, 
& St. L. Ry Co. v. Elume 13? 111. 451. This refusal of the court to 
exclude the hearsay evidence on appellant's motion must be regarded 
az reversible error . 

It is further urged by appellant, that there is a varianoe 
between the proof and the decl?ration; but inasmuch a9 the declaration 
has not beer, abstracted, this queetion cannot be considered and m.U8t 
be regarded as waived. The appellant is required to furnish such a 

far L . 

isijiqq-i .3 + i-eI ylq©! 

Bti lol sTix/peT &oa Lit ,voiXoq arid" lo ladmixn orft o* fsiasitei xfolrl 

in-: iTstTSl 8*99ll9'- n8cis?£;fe gnivasa ^Xae silrf- iioiS'cui.o'ijflJ 

-I)ivs ni: rrc . isg ot JiiJoo X-siiit 3dt rol ioi\q £i:-w d-i 

,e^X los* r .V iosii?T j8£f - • ^ noJ'Xi.'ni: iJIeS XswsL .eons 

d-*exix,:~ tn^ ,X£f; ..qqA .1X1 i-'I .oO X.;oO ^libajsO .v jsixsU'C (XS3 .1X1 

.SSX .qqA .1X1 3?X eXdoK .v 
;-:! [fn^XIsqqje '{C teguj zoiib ledtonA 

1 3 9XX9qq.3 ,noi.tx;ni3£X9 losiit rod aoqU 

aL 3rw rfoiiiw vti© 
1 sdllaqqr t^dJ ,£©qoX3V3t :*i nci^^aiffi 

TX/i-iniJjl ©a' J- svome-i :?/ .siM fcsJoLrltsni 

no %£.'■ r^edf 

■..' *1 rfoiriw at' mooa 

"on Jfcit tnjs 

9tj6m s:ic iSisifit 

.'J ' - 

Iriw ,v;£6ii79if Bsn ii kusj£i 

^tslarrio* irfgia £ axri 

Y^omit8»a- reus Tsvgngdw th^ 

lUt 9X1* *09iit f^n 

. . ;A .XXI OS .60 arri 

. :XI 7£X smjJiH .V .oO yH .J .*8 5 

-fjlvs ^jsaiaerf 9rf;t aLx/Xoxs 

. 10119 sXcfiaisvs^'e; 

i.^-Xc9fc '!:ooiq 9rf* flaawJe- 

j-BJLfra tnjB £)9i9i:2R«oo acf toan£0 aoi^faawp 8ld.+ ,£9i^o ;i#6cf£ crescf ton bjsiI 
JE riotfe risiniu'?: o;f bsiiupei ei tflfiXXeqqjs 9riT .i-svi^jiw as tsXiiigai 9cf 

-?i tijjoc 9ri:t 
. j-n^XJaqq. ■ 
-qoTq axfiJ tooc 
ro floqt 
rftxvv hsrod-a afjooa esericJ 

ha.F. j5ajL;oxf ein 
Slid- ni Y^-sqoi-: 


*ni?XIsqq''v .s^fil 

-90 ,^C9l^qiJ.- 

jt-9tx/Xox9 9d XX^n'B \fnc 
,*i sLxjXc- 
-j-nii''' asri'^L - iioxlT' .v aiv' 

T; ■ fuoc ".:.+ ■.-: X£airt9i ax 
tgiixsgsi 9Cf t? . 

•off^li^-.v X: ei 9i?ff.+ 
nox*£a-f:Xoe.' j ffox/in8£Xil 



complete abetr^-ct of the reccri as will fully present every error 
rslied upon, t-nd whioh is sufficient for the examination and der 
termination of the matters in controversy without the examination of ^ 
the record itself. Oiler v. City of Mattoon 167 111. 18; People v. 
Yukak-uV3k:i.8 363 111. J23; Juckson v. Win-ins b87 111. 336j ?t . L. A. 
& T. Ry. Go. V. Kolm:.n BB 111. App. 533; Berber v. Me Hi ah - Hayward 
Co. 3C9 111. Acp. 2S9. 

Another point urged by appe lant is, that the damages are 
excespive, and are not br.aed upon competent evidence. Appellee over 
the objection of the appellant, sought to show, as the measure of dam- 
ages, the difference between the cash market value before the injuy 
and the fair cash market value after the injury. The authoritien have 
been fully collected, and discussed at great length or this point in 
the case of McDonnell v. L. E. & W. Py. Co. 208 111. App. 443. The 
ruls is there laid down, that where personal property ha? been injured 
ani can be re'^airsi, the proper measure of damages is the cost of the 
repairs; but if it cannot be repaired, then the me=..sure of d3sroa?rea Is 
the difference between the fair cash market v=-lue of the property before 
th-- injury, and the fair, cash market value after the injury. In the 
cose at bar, many of the good? 'vere injured beyond repair. 11 JtJix was 
encumbent upon appellee in the first instance to prove that these goods 
were damaged beyond repair, or if they were capable of being repaired 
to prove tl~-e cost of each rep ire. After the fire appelle sold many 
of the articles and credit to appellant for the totsd svim she re- 
ceived therefor; but the evidence does not show whether she received what 
the property was reiisonrbly worth, nor whether it wa? capable of being 
reioalred; and if so what would ^^e the cost of repairing. 

For the errors indicated the judgment must be reversed and 
the cause is remj.nded for another trial. 

Reversed and remanded 


•tOTie yrevs :^n9.-' 7 aiW lo .to-sT^fscf^ eteXqmoo 

~4*c Jbn.- ,. . dtt^.a trr-- .noqii' LaiXei 

l Sa iTjSCsIoH .V .00 .'{H .T A 
.eeS .qqA .ill GOS '.oO 

!-v'j 'sIIeqqA .aonetiva :tneteqmoo noqw tsa^d *on eis taa ,9viJ3a9oxe 

'ii/c- -r-.r ::.;*t aa ,worf8 o.^ ^ifrtro"; . vr.:! Ti-^q-^ eii& 1o aot&oeldo edf 

.i;fgn?I s&osLLoo yXXi/l rt»9d 

.IT ^or , . ,^ . . :3nnoaoII ^o sbbo orf* 

'■o tsor f.'l'* Bi --^ - ,--. »L9tl.e<*8t def nio £n£. 

.j'^^Bff ^r' A^.r :'?-t ecT tocittJSO it 1:2 *0Cf jailraqsT 

.'Tiulai . . ^rf+ fcn-3 ^xtsJl^i Bdt 

atoor- epf .Ilsqqis noqu ta3dmuoa9 

t : tnoYQcT Jbssemjsb ©^sw 

-.^f:r.r tic- nXrs7c".? 9t ■ . -.^rl., '^st -'uue Ic teoo eiit'firo'zq ot 

LctJz: aelot&'ts edt to 

i^ iisd iro'isrBd& bevlBo 

B' -OB:~.QiBsv vtieqotq erf* 

• trT.-in9T el 9bi/..30 r 


SECOND DISTRICT. f ^^- I. ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court, 

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, 

do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in 

the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of 

said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the 

the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty. 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 


Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day of April, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and 
twenty, within and for the Second District/of the State of 
Illinoi s : / § 

Present--The ,Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres idin^ Jus t i ce , 

Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice^ 

ffi^n. OSCAR E. HEARD, Justice^ 



""'"/ 219I.A. 63 7 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on 
OG i ►' i IJ,iw ^he opinion' of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following-, to-wit; 


(Jan. No. 6300, 

Le.vio H. Bower, aiijjelloe, 

va. Appeal from Peoriu., 

Herbert 'Y. Hancool:, ;.p;ooll;,nt. 


DIBELL, P. J. Lo'.vif3 H. Bo v\:r is t. dev.lQV in Chici.go 
in uBc3d autonobilou under tlio tr do n:-mc "The Auto Exch ..nge", Her- 
bert W. H .noo:;k live;? in Pcori,^, in tho buainea -; of managing fi.,rma 
and dealin- in re: 1 8at;;te. V/e desired to buy -- Hudson Speedster 
automobile of the 1917 model, and found one in Peoria in the garage 
of Lotiis Geyloj: Comp.ny, ovaied by Max Louis, vfhich -.7 u for sale. 
Hanoojk bought if of Louio, 1^50 dovm and Ol>000 the next d..y 
in full, and a]3ent .'^366,90 in r..?- pairing; it ^.nd painting it and put- 
ting on no. I tirea. Tho ni.tcjhino had once been ovmed by Bo.ror, He 
found it in pot3:3Q:^sion of Hr.ncock in Peori-. and deraio-nded it. The 
preponderanoe of the evidence is th.. t he told Hanooclc ...nd others in 
Peoria th:.t it had htjon stolen from him in Chicago. Hancock did not 
give up the machine ..nd Bo.v r brought re])livin ugainst Hancock an I the 
Louis Gayler Company for it. The sheriff did not obtain the c-r.-r upon 
the .vrit ^nl plaintiff filed .a declaration in replevin v/ith . jount 
in trover, to v/hich pleas v7oro filed, th; .t to the count in trov r be- 
ing not guilty. Plaintiff dismissed thrt suit .-.g.^inst Louis Goyler Co- 
mp..ny ani there -^a;-, a tri .1 on H.noook'a plea to the count in trover 
and a verdict and ,. judgment for plaintiff for ;i?l,OaO, from which E n- 
cook apperils. 

Bo-.-/-r ^:3l-..im3 that v/hile hs owned this machine in Chic- go a 
atr.-nger came to him and desired to buy it • nd to turn in a Saxon Six 

3 a down p.-ymont . nd to give a series of notes m.turing frciri month to 
month for the re:it of the selling price; that the man represented hira- 

:'lf to be Howard McDo.vei? '.f Aurora; th. t this oaa on Mi«,y 7, 191£'; 
th-.t Bo'ffer took his S .aon c r- :..n i iro.; —.•> notes for the difference and 


^^^ 'A.lQl^ 

.0088 .oU ,n%t 
^BoLlBquJj ^1(}VoQ. .H aiwoJ 


O3a;ci£[0 xii 18 X. 

' ■: j-feLcisqS noaJ'X/H . vi/eJ 

... ' J3GIC 

^Qvll :^GOon. H .W j-Tsd 
ino0*I ni ©iio Lrii/ol Lxi~ «IqLo.ti TfGI sd* lo sXXcforaoti; 

+n»cj6 ijflii ,XXjLrl ni 
- - ..x;.o ^i;^ -- oi—iiw-y. viiT _,8aiJt* «««■ no gni'^t 

::o noJtee&eeoq nx &i Lauol 
..»il JjX. . i: ocnyllvo »rf.+ lo -^jorui^ceijnoqeaq 

il; axi. iaoa'i neXotp noad h^d tl i-^df iilzoe 
.:.ii-ii i^iii. ..:...■ axvilqai (tr 'VoS Lfl^ Btildosm edt qu evjt 

sdd" nt^^do Son blL 'lllnodi, &xlT ,J-2 noli: Y^-^JQinoO isXysO bIwoJ 
*r;rr-,;. •-:- ;.'i:vaXqei fli bsXil lli&itU-.lq Las *la\v oriJ- 

-.kj ^i vo-ii ai iauoo edt yXxi &:. ~^_ dz)td\i o& t'lcvoiJ- nl 

VoO 8lx;oJ *«inr,..r>i -.tior. -iicf jjoar ' ,.2ini-'iX*^r .yJ-Xiir:;;: *on gni 

aovoiit ni ttxTj/oo wilcf o& iJoXry e'^ooonrtK iiv.- ' .rxodcf in-'; Yn.c.q: 

-fi.E doidv Hoi'i ,Oc;C\Xc; toI ?-lx;tnl oXq lol JnemgLuf, ^- Ln-. Joiiiov ^ Lu 

,eli;sqqjii jfoo: 

. Btdi Jbenwo sri ©IlxfK :t- rf* eral^Xc afV»oa 

xIG n- i n'ijji o.t tn .+ i ^f0d oJ baiiaeJj Lite rairf o* em-io aegn^iajr 

oj" ri^noi^ liiO'ix anlmy^f ;ni uo:fon to "-^'i?; o:t Ln^' tnota^.-q nwoL ai e. 

-ffliri be&netyBiqoi n.riv • rft .Krlit jdoXI'^ ^.nllXae erf* lo ;fi;8a sxlcf lol d;tno. 

;'^X -.Ij- c)"i^* ^.-iaoo: lOWoQtM L-'umoR od oi IXe; 

Lr: . 9crcaafci.iJtxi» oii^ aoa eBton qu notL btu. 'XoO noa^-^S Bid olooi lowoS :f.:d" 


a chattel Tnortgago ^sojurin them, and hr.d th.. buyer exooute them, 
..nd sent hin av/L„y till :.. lc;.tor dc.y, rocorded the chattel mortga-ge 
in Kune County --nd looked up th j quo'^ti on oi' tho ohiuracter of 
Ho'.vc;.rd MoDov/oll, L:.nd on the thrid or foiorth day thorsi-f tor deliv- 
ered to him the Hudson o: r. Some tirae thorecfter, and pres\im.^bly 
aftor the fir-jt note c-rr.o duo and waa unpaid, Bov/er satiafied him- 
self th;-t thi; party to .rhom ho sold the o:.r v/asnot Ho-vard UoDo.'/oll 
of Aurora, and ho thon ci uge-) I a oearch tc bo instituted *hioh loc- 
ated thia oar in Poori;.. in the poeaeasion of Hanoook or the Louis 
'}oyler Corcp-ny for him. Bovvor ol^.imy thot tho oar was obt ined 
from hitn by the man who did ^et it by falsely repreaenting hlmoelf 
to bo MoDo'.iToll, and that thia oar vfv.Q iiSQnaatxiBxkxvr: intended to bo 
delivered to UoDov/ol , ond th;..t the person who got it its deemed to 
have comiriitted l^reeny of th-i proper^ under Section 103 of Diviaion 
One of the Crimin.J- Code, and that therefore Bovver h^.c the sitme ri^ht 
to recover the o;a* from any person in vvhoao poase.-'.ai on ho may find it 
aa if it had boon stolen. The proof showed Hancock in •oasesiion as 
;..n innocent puroha-ior for full v...lue. 

Though plaintii.' doe^ not so tnotify, yet the chattel mor- 
tgage v/hich he drovv or c.^uaed to be dr.>.wn on 1-ki.y 7, 1919, and tc be 
executed by the puroha.ior, deooribed th.5 purchaser as Hc^ard McDow- 
ell, :-Ul St. Aurora, Illinois, and pldntiff must h:..vo obtained 
that loo;-.tion fron th^. ourchr.ser. At a later date another man came 
to him claiming to be Ho'-vari McDovyell of Aurora, 'vho denied that he 
had bought thi;; car, and plintiff testified that it •va;^ not the miM 
to .vhom ho sold it. Plaintiff h;.d sent a registered letter addressed 
to Howard McDouell . t Aurora and the second man apparently c-mc in 
answer to th..t letter. Pl..intiff testified in chief th.-t thir. s -o- 
ond man did not bring tho letter, but in rebuttal he to ^tiiied that 
that man did bring the letter w.nd that ho himself road it. Plaintiff 
t.'^3tified that tho gooond rr^.n al:5C showed hima draft regi3tr...tion 
J rd bearing the name of Howard MeDowoi: ^.nd th-t ho then hrtd .. con- 


e- .--'^ ^{-i>vj3 jnifl Jxiee ' 


. ii.j? i;i!j-jj,7_ JO atfdi Qd ui-i ^.^-cauA ... 

ll^iml.' 1 yd :}-i: i-ij^^ ^.-xL oilw iia:« ad* ycf jRtsi aoni 

.^auiiil hYJS.^^»^..<^&h BiJW lao Bld:f iiidi baa ^L£9vo(l^M^ od o* 

L,j i,o..isoL al *1 :*• :-r08^»q e;d;t- tijrfj- .rJjOJJ < lovioQcil o* i»t)'ievilti 

noxeivjtci lo COX noxovO^- loLm; ■fae^o^q s>d;f ^o y^JSo^TajX l^ed'^linMOo eviii 

■30ffw nx nofetieq xn^^KOVl 'juso odit aovdn&l o& 

■ XiiiX x.->!t iecr,d&ixt^ taoQonat 'R 

..o wexb yii doidw ^gJa-Ji* 

ijiix.^I- -c t:idJ cJ-rf^xrcd bxid 

rirfxtx.-II .J'x IfXoB jxd iJKwIvr o: 

Xli .Ij i,£U: .CXOV.'OCICII i;Xi3W0H o^ 

-: -i ioido ax LaxiiJ-aet Hjt;toi*,ls" ^laitel tjidt ot lawen; 

7-ui' sii L^.t&uder til isjd ^i^tteL vd^ janl^cf ;ton. blh ami Lao 

xttial^i'^. :fji 'iXoeraiif od todt baa a9*d-«X c»rf^ jnind WJb «iira-<f^ori: 

«o ,d^ &i^d;} baim&ei 

-nor ■. ;..-;ii xioiid' iju J. xi.J iui..- liQwoQoii jjaj:.».oIi io ftiuuirr ©d* :<^ni-i..5i'*<f bTt\ 

vero4tion with tlio sooond man, v;hioh tojother v/ith those docijunents 
convinced pl.-intiff th /!-, thia aeoond man \»aa Ho.vard McDowei;', of 
Aiirora. This is ^;ub3t. nti .lly .11 the corapetont testimony the i-) 
tiff offered. He did not ccI'l MoDcvell nor prove by him or cny one 
th.vt Hovturd MoDov/ei:. lived or did not live ut 'ill Fl^ig^ Street, k\ix- 
or... Pluintifl proved th:-t Pi-ttoraon, Pregidont of the Ajaz Motor 
Company, l. ooncern in ChiOc^^-o, told pl-dntiff that L.v./rence Ayraa 
<Vcc3 the raun -.fho bought fcia automobile, .^ni th:.i.t he, P.tteraon,, hud 
been to the home of Ayres and :iCf5rt;xined thcit fact. Plaintiff sent 
an invcgti.ntor to Aurora, viho and ronortei oert;>.in things 
to pi. intiff. Neither Pattoraon nor the investigator .vere -vitnoases. 
Plaintiff did not at.^te the ijura at ■•■/hioh ho accepted the Saxon c:-r ag 
part payment nor did he testify but thi-t he still had the Saxon car 
or had sold it. Ho din testify that it afterwards turned out that 
the Scixon c.^r bolon;j;od to the Ajax Ilutor Corii'cny but he -lid not Blstattn 
claim to l:novr that fact himself nor did he bring any //itness to teat- 
ify thereto, T/e did not cl.ira th...t he aacert-ined from Patterson 
where AyrsB lives nor th..t he tried to find Ayroa and produce him aa 
a •.vitnooj. He tried to introdujj in evidence a letter purporting; to 
be signed by Ayrog a^lmitting th..t he was the one who bought the Hud- 
son oar, but there was no proof to identify this l3ttor, and it v/ua 
incor:;p6tent in ay event, Pl;.intiff testified that he did not aeek 
to ..iioert.'in the identity or the fin:.nci;.l rcaponaibility of the pur- 
chaser, Plc.intiff tool from the purohajor .^ chattel mortgage upon 
thi3 car to aeo-oxo tho notes evidencing the unpaid part of the pur- 
cha;3e iiioney, but he did not hiJ'i i-cknoivledrjo it. V/e took from 
the p\ircha:jGr a "oov/er of attorney to Herman Bo./er to ajknov/lodge aaid 
instrument for the purchas'sr, but that never of attorney wa3 not aok- 
no.¥ledged, nor did the attorney in fact acknowledF;(} the mortgttge. 
Plaintiff filed the chattel i^ortgage for record the next d;.y, but 
under the statute aoncerning chattel niorts^^goa it h^-d to be • oknov,-- 

ledged v/here the mortgi.gor resided, and ^vithout ^^uch acknowlodgment 


itnl^Xq i.'St7nlvnoc 

-n ■ ',',:'■ r'l 

£fev.\)CLc. . : xL bH .Jbassllo 111;!- 

^Q&cbl &«(,A tjild' lu oil;. >voiq lliinljii'^ *iio 

' iiO fii ni«onoo jj ^ifn-sqinTOD 

jjjuii .I'ic tSiidowoji/- cirf tr{'i'.rocf orfw njj« erfS" ejjv 

j-nsfi ■^'Tii^iil^X'i ,*cwil niasifioc ;.>t(A lo ©mod axl;t o^ rtsod 

• ■ Iteovrri 

vDX..a &iii i- -ud •^'^tfcot ad bib loci tnonnfjsq" iiEc; 

. i. &M& Y^J^^ee;? i'lb «jH ,tt i-Xoe '^ jx"! lo 

no8TC9t ton jjli:; »«? .ocfsierlcf- ^ll 

-"(:•• ion pQvlI 89T^A snajrfv 
0.+ .isj. ■;■•;-. i.-eli* »H ,caen*Jti» x. 

-JawH ' amfA x^ beet^ts &d 

\n eflw Gitedt' tssd »*ri;o no8 

-"■^i *tii«v» -i^« nl tfte*e<icTOOfii 

to •';#l*fisJjl ori* rri;^:ii9aej8 «l* 

■'o'ilt ioot tlltftli»X<T .lee^^ti 

it o*tcroa8 of sbo eirf:t 

ton JbiL 9'' irio 

*70 iswi, jria^irq ed^ 

;^.'lT 10 1 txiaraiji^Cfrl 

Ton ^tJ&'gbtLTfo^ 

if boin -ilittnii-Lt 

eAS 'leJbfitf 

of th :■ ohi-ttol rnortg:.srQ. There is no competent proof in thia 
record th .t the person who bought and took away thia Hudson ocir 
wag not Howtjrd MoDowoll of 211 Fli-rrf- Street, Aiirora, exoept th:i.t 
pl;.intiff u,fterwurds sent a refiatered letter to th.i.t address and 
ajiother man brought it in ^nd ohowod it to plaintiff and showed hira 
a registration card bearing the name Hov/ard MoDov/ell ;..nd had suoh 
a conversation with plaintiff' that plaintiff concluded that he was 
Howard McDowell and not the first. We are entirely clear that most 
of the evidence we havw recited vas hearsay and incompetent. The 
court sustained numerous objactiona to this testimony, but still 
much of it remained in the record, and v/ithout it there was no case 
for laintiff . Ho reason appears v;hy plaintiff did not produce Mc- 
Do'.'/ell ani Patterson and Ayrea and the investig:;±or. He ./: a allowed 
to recover upon the conclusions which he drev; from statements m^-de 
to him by persons whom he dii net call as witnesses. V/e do not de- 
cided whether plrintiff's vlev; of the law is sound, nor whether a 
seller of goods to a strmiger on tine is required to use any o:-re 
to identify the 3tran;;er in order to entitle the seller to ret^-ke the 
goods from an innocent purchtiser for v.Jue.. Proof of the fiacta should 
precede a discussion of those subjects. 

Pl;.-intiff ar-rues th: t if the facts are as he supposes them t 
to be he is entitled to retake the machine whereever he c^.n find it, 
the sraae an if it h>id been stolen, and th.:t question i;3 raised upon 
instruotiona. We are of opinion that these instructions should h^^ve 
th been refused because no such base had been made upon the evidence. 

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cauae is re- 
manded for another trial. 

Reversed and remanded. 

^■^ -1. . i- 

■iu.v ■ •iteJtgo'S 

;^e:>..' 7..;i3 , .: '.'■Ji' " voOoM JbxawoH 

, .;jjs.^-;.o- uc.aoi-'4vo ©dJ- lo 

'. ^ 1 d iAr^KiQ Bi-'C'i orator: Lsnijii-ax/a ^tztroo 

: j^u-:iJ^ji. -ji'^. Wi; : . u:i/-iiJ»'--i^-!'9- y-fiJ" aoqif -^vocoa o;t 

. -' ■; i;oX;fijao Ul ail scf ot 

..i ii. 11 :. QAi 

.Siioiw oui^axri 

•^- ■ ..■■■: -u-r" ;il 



SECOND DISTRICT. \ ^^- I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court, 

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, 
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in 
the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of 
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty. 

Clerk of ike Appellate Court. 

"■' ■ ' A\ 




Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day of April, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine/hundred and 
twenty, within and for the Second District of the State of 
Illinois: \ § 

Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres id/ng Jus t ice , 
Hon. \ JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Jus tile. 
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Justife. 
ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk. i 
CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff, i -^Xty-^^ra* \J tJ i 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on 
OGi Z'i l9?r: the opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following, to-wit: 

Gen. No. 6884, 

Floyd C.'t, ..pp8ll>.^.nt, 

Uii-mia N. Sohwitt, '..p^elloe, 

ninnio Htt. Sohir.itt, :.ppollpo, 

FloyU. G, :3ohn:itt, appoli.'^nt. 

Appeal from Kano, 


HO-lXd, J, 

November 17, 1917 ..ppollunt i;.nd ..pnollee, 
/vho ure h-a'jb;-.nd ;,rxd v/ifo, 3cp;..r;^tod -.^nd uince that tine h vo 
lived .soperate i^nd ■.r)i:.ct from euob other. Dewember G, 1917 thoy 
entered into . written c^tpreoraent thereby thoy t^greed to oontinuo 
to ijo livo. The ;;.groemont ./aa lengthy ^,xU ..rnong other t^dngo 
proviaod th:~t . ppe" loo shold h..vo tha o:..r3, custody c^nd oontrol 
of thoir t'.yo ahildron; ' th...t c-ppollant yhould ouuao to be diach^g 
od J. r.iort^fu^o u;ion tho homoate .d v/hich thT/ jointly o./nod; th-tt 
title thereto :iho\ild bo put in the children, v/lth a lif - eatatu 
in the v/ife, thut a.pnell<^nt should pay appellee .^JlOO per monti 
in joiiio jnontiily inatallment for tho support of herijeli uai child- 
ren, ..3 ion,^ ;i.3 3hG lived or '.intil uho irs-rried. It virc.a iJXao pro- 
vided th...t th(5 ■.i^Qament wu3 ms-de v/ithout prejudice to ny right 
of a-otion ./hioh either of tho p:.rtiea rmi.y hc.vo to u divorce. Ap- 
poll nt^'nin'jH v/ith ;xll proviaiona of th(j -;?^oernont until May 
15, 1930. 

December 33, 1919 ..ppell;int lil-d hij bill in th:> circuit 
court of Kaiie county aakinr for l. divorce on the pruund^ of dcc- 
ertion und ueking for tho o;, cuatody and control of th;} t,/o 
::.ildren. Appolloc filed an anurfer t^ioroto donyinj the denerticn 
and in her ana.ver cet up the a[^3roement of Deceubor 8, 1917, 

Febru.jry 3, 19;-?0 . ipollee filed a oro.;a bill for ■■— 

1 i. 

.oK ,floO 
'■■■'■' .« alantU 


i no ovrt iJterf* lo 

.itboaod eci& itc Lo 

L Itdv srt? nl Jirq od bhjoda of^XBtit Ql&li 

yffl x-Cfi^nom emoe nJ: 

>zlj Jc;oLiv 

.:felvo:iq LJUi Atttt h'.'nLi!s\Qjij, Src-.XIoq 

.Of:ei ,21 

/itfiwc o ooTO fntroc; e«iiS !ko ^toxoo 

xo Ioi*noc txijc \»i.oJoj. t ro^ jjcl^BJa lurui noi^ae 

^? :^nofflo©'x;'>j.; 'jrf* qu ;f»8 aewfcn-. rtnri ni 1 
»it1 ©oXIfc •' »S Tf^y^^C" 

sopijrate m.-iintoiv-nce aottin.: forth thut aha v?uij livin*^ aepLJuto and 
.ap<;rt from appoll.^nt by ro:;-£3on of hi a oxtrerno ^^ni ropoato-i cruelty 
to.v.jcd hor and by reason of her digaov.ry -ppell.,.nt h .d ooin- 
mitted adultery, 

ThG oro3'? bill ca:30 alle;-ed th..t by re..:;on of th-^ filing 
of itppelleea bill for divoroo he h d ropudiutod . .nd brokon auid 
agreemout and that in vio-.v of :nioh repudiation and brt-aoh 3ho ol- 
eotud to doolarw the ajTroemont at an ond. Appellant anawerod tho 
oroj-, bill denying all ch.iTijtis thorc3in jont^inod. 

February 13, 1290 appollant by le^ve of oourt filed an 
araondod bill of aow l.-int -oharginjj; appellee with oxtr ome -nd r'3- 
poatcd jrutjity to ./hich amended bill i:-pQllQo filed a.n .ina^ver deny- 
ing/ ull jhaofgoa of oruolty, 

Tho oauae wa.'5 hoard by the oo\irt on -^ bill and anawor 
and oroaa bill und ;~n3v/iir und evidenoo heard in opon jourt i~nl on 
June i, 1930 tho oourt entered u. dearec- dismiaiiing appellanta bill 
'. appoll:>.ntQ e03t3 and finding th.-t ..ppelle^; uindor her oroas bill 
.3 entitled to aoparcte Kainem^noa from appellc^nt in the deoros 
provided for «ujh Separate in;.inton.-noo in uooordance v/ith the nro- 
visiona of the a^roemont of December 8, 1917, It v;...3 further pro- 
vided that in tho decree th:.t in the event that appellant a:v-,ealod 
to the appellate oourt, appellant -jhould pay to appellee V^fea» the 
filin;-^ of the dj? ? ol 1 jc" bond he sum of i^a35 for hor aolioitor'a 
foea and expense upon appo;il. September 3, 1930 ..ppellant filed 
hie bond for nn appeal fron a.-id doeroo. 

It is oont ended by appellant that a married .toct. n i :> not 
entitled to deoreo of iicnuratc maintenance if at the time ihe iilea 
hor bill tjho is living aepiurate and apart from her huaband under -n 
equitable fjepar^tion ..r^oeraont, free from fraud, .vl:lch i3 bein^ fully 
:rf orraed by him, 


J ejtf ti-^'ii...i.i^ J iii. 

-" ^cmZL&qqji tsuoil txatij. 

.... -V nicij,!- jiejixodo IXjj anx^fieij I.'' 

ft,, . '" 03eX ,6X Y^-«^tr^tfo'i 


;cf 3Aii,. 

J J 'it/0 1' oS^lLBqci^i adt oi 


To m.^intuln un vDtion for aeparate m.dntonanco the wife 
must show not onJky thut aho haa u gocd o.-Ude for living jep^ate 
anJ. i.-p-i.rt from hor h'.i;^u.nd, but iUao th;it such living ^pa.rt w^a 
•vithout fu-ult on hor pctrt, A voluntary consenting by her to a 
separation, jondtitutes 3uoh f>.Lult .vithin the ir.eaning of the 
statute Johnson va, ^Johnson 135 111. 5l0j Dyckor vs. Decker 379 
111, 300, Up to the time of filing his bill for dj.vorao ^ppall- 

..nt hud oompliwd .vith -.11 th? terms of tho agrement on his >x.rt 
to h'^ perf ormad c^nd had ..ppelleo filed hir bill for jop.Lcate 
ten..na9 prior to that time :3he oould not it. \7hen 

opeli^nt fil3d his bill for livorco and agk^jd for th;} custody of 
tho children he in effeot ronudiutisd tin c^ontr-iot and -tviksd for 
relief .?hioh v/ouid nulify the ugToement in some of it'-: moat im- 
port. ..nt proviiiona. The oourt had jurijiiotion of tho tLrtiea and 
^i£*»* 3Ub]J:ect matters ;..nd havin:;; ■-3U0h juriadiotion ttie court had 

'ull povvor to do ocwplete equity bstv/een tho parties with reference 
to the subject ratter of tho controveray or any matter germane 
thereto. Appellant h vinsj invoked the jurisdiction of th.5 court 
over the subject matt.r of the agreement by asking reliof from aome 
; : its provisions ounnot oompl^-in because the court took complete 
jurisdiction over it ^nd on appelleea cross bil ordered him tc 
crry out the terms of tho ..;:r,;emont, VHiile this relief i3 not 

• rtioul.rly prayed for by appelleo it lalla iTlthinpr the general 
\- <i< 4v for relief #»«» found in thi-j cro3;3 bill. 

It in contended by appellant that appellee by niiscon- 

-uot on her part rr>.;terially contributed to the sopcjfation and th-t 
therefore ahe ia not entitled to separate rnainten.-nce, Thore is 

c very sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether or not she waa 
guilty of uisconduot. The chancellor who atey thd 'ritnesses and h 

Xino ion woilc 

:f Bit . : . 

zeq vri 
oi'iq et- 

.':Ir- lei 

...iOielvoici Brf^l 

'n vo rtoitoibei 

-Rs "»••*■ 

he .jrJ. the avldonoe found by the dacroi? thi..t aho .v. j not [jirj.lty 
of suoh ifii'jjonduot :.nd we vroidd not be .iustifitid indlaturbin;^ 
hi a findingg, • 

Tho deoree ia affirmed. 

.d& br Sri 
.esnJtJjnll elrf 




SECOND DISTRICT. f ^^- I. ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk- of the Appellate Court, 

m and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, 
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in 
the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of 
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty. 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 



Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day>6f April, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hnndnred and 
twenty, within and for the Second District /f the State of 
Illinois: I 
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres idiJ'g Jus t ice 
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justyle 
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Justfce. 
ARTHUR. E. SNOW, Clerk./ 

219I.A. 638 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on 
OC I <^ i Y62' ^^^ opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 
following, to-wi t : 

Gen. No. 6830, 

Ro:.5e Grevo, 


'^^* Appeal from Du Pa,g©, 

Robert Harris, 


Nieh: UI3, J, 

219 l.A. 63 8 

In this case Bofse Grovo the -.poollee auod the 

-ppellunt Robert Harris in the oircuit coiirt of Du FL.^(i county 
to r;;»over daraagea for ^.^n alleged broach of -- marriage contract. 
There wag u trial by jury, which retjulted in a verdict i-nd judg- 
ment for O^'^500 ..zinat the anpell^^nt; and this appeal is r>roaecuted 

cor. the jud^ent. The teatiraony of the ..ppellee i3 to the 
-aiect, that the appellant, who is a farmer, residing on a fiurm 
nc;..r B rtlett in Du Pago county, emoloyed the appellee in IJovem- 
ber 1911 to work for hiin as hoi.i:30 Icecpcr; and to help L-bout the 

..ore3e on the farm: that 3he continued to ./ork for hira in that 
p.\-eity until July 31 at, 1S1?J and that iurinr- the time ahe 

-3 in appelli.nt'a employ, he made love to her in various ./-ya 
-nd promised oi to iwijrry herj i.lao afterwards seduded her under 
the promice of marriage. There ia a .qharp jonflict in the 
evidence bet. /-en the t.jf>timony of the .ippelloe, and of the ap- 
pellant, ..'ith reference to the jiromiae of marriage, ani ■ he 

:ediijtion j1 .imed by her; and the direct •••roof concerning 
these matters ia jcnfined t^- the toatimony of the parties to 
the oontrovoray; and was largely a ouerjtion as to which o± 
theae parties told the truth. 

The j-roun.i urged by ..-pellant for reversal of 
the judgment ij, that some of the instruct ions giv^.a for the 


.0tl86 .oH .noO 

jOVU'iii 88OH 

teri'^ uC moil LtseqqA 'BV 

ssa .A.iexs 

'iinuoo esj^'^ i/Q 'io d"iuo'j tiuorio oil* nl elia^H cfaodoH itn-o I £eqq-u 

Jbe*UT • eiri* bfiii {fazLZeqqr, odi iectiss^ 005Ev ^ol *nom 

ericf o* si eolleqq. adt lo \noDtitEoi- arIT . Jnemjiiir r. odi noil 

mxi'^J ^ no rnliis: r ,i©ra:[jt;l .:> ei orfw ^ittJiLLeq(iJ■: adi' &^di tioelle 

-ciBVoK r.t .t LQ-^oLr-" ,Y*niioo 08j3<T sjQ. n2 tJoXif'i/S ^liisn 

ori* Jl'- . / Jbn£ j:tQq .il b£ aild lol :;iiovv oJ- IX9I aad 

ti;xl:t- nl mlx£ ao^ :faov' ct tbanJtJnoo erfe *^rl;f jmi^ii oxl;^ no eeoaorfc 

©ric omit orft sni ! bay. jVieX ,itl£ vIxcL IlJmr Y^-tc-^t. 

eY--v. Et/oxxcv ni rer? 0* ovoX ©Luitn orf ^^oXrina B*;tn-;II©acfi3 ni 8.£:w 

aoLnf! 'iOii iuCjL'f:' icj'^^" oeX*-: ;a£>rf Yixttit o& to Lenimoicci hn^; 

sriJ nx .:i 8it>dT ..:;-".'.-liijjffl lo acicioaq edi 

-qji orfJ lo bnc ^roLleqc^ odif lo y;nor. di- nacv.jtQd eonsLive 

©rl i.n^: t -r lo eelfflOTq sriJ o;f ecnoiB'Hii rfitlv. ^rfri^XXeq 

;ini;n'. .caoo looac' Josixi. »ri* i/n-e joitiii vd botnl.iLc nojt:tcrrb8e 

o;f tiald-a.uq ecLt lo x^omiii:.o& ©rit o* beni'inoc til eio:t*£m sbsri* 

io dctdv o,t Bfi nciJ-KfJi.; vlarixiX eiJW Lnis jYJii&voicfnoc od;t 

.rfd'x/ii' &di^ blot uiit&i:(^. ororii 
:o I..e7svoa 10 i cJ-noi-IIo . , irvo-rrr in^toT^ nliiw orfT 

u-ppelloe didnt not corr ;otly state tho 1o.m; and th -t oth.ra 
./hiJh in eficot iireotod ;i verdict ivnored rnu.terial tuot^ in- 
volved in tho controversy, which were relied upon by him _a a, 
iQiensc to tho ;i.otion. The inatriictiona v/htoh were -pointed 
out ^3 orroneoua are No, 3, No, 4 ;.nd No, 5 ?lven lor the 
::-ppelloe. In Instruction No. 3 tho- jury were toli, th.^t if 
thoy believed from a preponderance of the evidence, thut the 
appellant entered into u contract of a^jreament to itiiixry the 
appellee, at the oxniration of three yeara; and that at the 
expiration of throe yeara the a^^po'. lee requested the appell-nt 
to marry her; and that the appellant "without iudtif i..ble -luuse 
failed and refused qo to do" that their voriict should bi for the 
plaintiff, Ther > i^ nowhere in the instructions -ny definition 
of what i3 meant b • ju:jtii:'i.blc cause, P.'hat wou3d be justifiable 
cause for ;i f;.iluri3 or refus-l to carry out :.- marriap;c contract 
is question 1-w; but under this instruction it W£i.3 left to the 
jury, to determine what wo Id be, or wcild not be justifiable 
oauae; -nd the instruction ./..;; therefore erroneous* La Porto v, 
Wall..o^?. 89 Ill.Aj)p!bl7; Br.^dloy v, Schrayer 304 Ill.App. 331: 
Sexton V, Barrie 103 111.'. Appa,586, 

Instruction No, 4 completely ip;nore3 the alleged set- 
tlement .;hich the appell.Lnt cl ..imed he m^de .ath appellee concern- 
ing her cau:30 of .ction, and .vhich he relied on as a defense. 
Under these circumst^.nces it .Jag error to f^ive the instruction, 
Moonoy v. City of Ohic fro 33& 111, 414; Parttid^e v. Cutler 138 
111, 504; Pr.-nte v, H...rtm...n lo8 111, App, 393;^. 

In;3truction No., o which relates to tho damages ia alaO 
erroneous, inasmuch aa it learns it ^.o the jury to fix a iamages 
any .3um /hihh they may think .v oper. A jury should be guided by 


oo ^on tRLlb aoXXeqc:. 

,oM ^i. ,oH an^ bvooao'xio a^^ iv 

ii:j :ciebnociviq- a moT^ bsvsllod xoxi;f 

Qi' y.o 9rft 0*- ^QoXIeqqB 

j-n- -iqx© 

r . -. .... 1 . . , , .1 

^olioisi&Bni odt Li: 

X piaxwS |V no;txd8 

-«^»onL ^ riolrfv ;fnemaXJ 

.QE^ : ©rl rioixlw i>n^ ^noi:fc ; ri 

,nojt;foifaJt. oe&djf a6i>r" 

. . .XXI eaX n- .V' Qid.-i'xR ihOS ,XXI 

■■J bottj rorfe Yoi/f; . -;od:t rfdidv. nu/e y^ 

the eviionoe in arriving a.t the amount of the damagea, the same' 
L-s they ;3hci£Ld be oonc ^jmin^i- ny other m:;tter aubniitted to them 
for detsa-rnination. 

It is ul3o contended, th:^..t the couxt erred in the re- 
fu3 1 of in^tructiona requested by the appellant, aame- 
ly r(3iuued inotrctions 1 und 3^ These inatruotionu have refer- 
ence to oertain principles to be ;. foliei in determing the credp- 
it tv- be -•';iven to the toatiraony of //itneasea, and have reference 
o-lao to the impeaohraent of ./itncoaea. They are aub.'^t to the 
objection however that special attention I3 called to the evid^ 
enoe of the appellee by the use of the personal pronounj they 
also i;ive undue prominence to the teotirnonj'' 01 Fn.nk Joalyn, 
AlCred Shieldfjand Herman ^Vnezel n.i arc objectionable for that 
rccLaon. Tanner v, Cl:-.pp 13'J 111* App, 363; './right v. Bell b 
111. App. 3J3; J. & S. E. Ry Go. v. W.^lah 106 111. 3o3j Hewett 
V. Johnaon 7: 111. 515; H:.toh v. M.rsh 71 111. 370; Bro/m v. 
Munaon 51 111. App. 488. Rex^ised Inetrotion No» 3 .vaa proper- 
ly refused, becauae there ia no eviaence upon .vhich to back this 

For the errora indictted, the jud^-itient is reveraed ;xnd 
the (jauae rem-.nded for .mother trialj • ina inuch -^a the caae is 
to be triad apjain, we refrain from diaouaasing the questiona raia- 
ed oono^irning the wei£3;ht or effect of the evidence. 

Reversed and rem nded. 

merit . . :i biirodi- Y^df 

,noxd-i..fiI.- ■ lO' 

■^ GeXqlonliq nlii^ibo oj^ ovai 

aoneae^si av.. .; "rrrn.'i ..aoiali-eo* orl* oj" novl^ scf ..J- J-J 

nrlj- o-' ■'■'X'- .Boi.v.rntiri !to d'Xiojnrioiieqini ©rit of Oelu 

Ijisiooqe fjjri;f navdworf xloi;tO0{;d( 

YQdJ inr/ono7rf I.-ncc'rcr^ oil* *o obu odt Yci" t^e-CXsQcri: ©rf* ^o oom 

^£Vt':Zr. oT, . . f-t srlt o:f eononiraoiq 9t;Lm} eviy obXj 

c -il. . . ■^rA ♦in GfiX qqjjXO .v :toixn*jT . o: 

li&euoH iU.t . ■ . . '; yJT .:5 .r: :fS .L [Siill .q^A .IT 

.V ;.v.o'i^^ ,(;'^t . :v riBX:.!' . . :iT TT noenrfOL . 

-'ts- .oK nol*oa;t-8«I Jbee .._ . ._ ..:.CI 16 nOfeXit/l 

eii. ..oqir oon&bivtt on Gi oiorf^'oG;/ .laex/^ei Y* 


i orit gflxe£etroaiJb moal dtj:iTiti: . od 

) '• , \ 


SECOND DISTRICT. f ^^- I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court, 

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, 
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in 
the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of 
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty. 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

/H^ /h, 


Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the six^ day of April, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand ni^ hundred and 
twenty, within and for the Second Dis^^ict of the State of 

111 ino i s : 

Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pr#s iding Jus 1 1 ce 

Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, ^stice. 

Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, justice. 

CURT S. AYERS, She/iff, 


BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on 

■■'i/T 27 TQOA ^^^ opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 

following, to-wit 

Gen. No. 68'^9 

Edwiurd J. Bcjnrlck i^nd 

V/illi-ra G. Hanneyi 



Appeal from City Court 
Spring Vulley C0..I Company, Spring Valley. 



Niehaua, J. 

This suit vvas oorr.inenood by the ii-ppelleeso Edaard 
J, D.i-mrick ;*.nd '»V. G. Hanney 0.3 p..rtners, L-g.^inat the .^ppellc^nt, 
Sprinfv Valley Co.a Company, a, id Joseph F. Kimbor, in the oity 
court of Spring Valley, to recover a-ma,jf;ea for the injury to a 
atook of mershaniiae bv the j-ppellees, Cv.uaed by smoke 
30ct, 'ifhicjh came into th.; premises of the a-^ elleea in conaequeno 
of ; lle,:j,x;d negliirence of the appellant ^..nd Kinber, in making re- 
pairs on -^ ohininey, by vfhieh the chimney hai becomeclO:;<i-ed up. 
The declan.tion alleges that the defendants emoloyed pcrsonsa 
to ropv. ir u. oortain chimney; and that the repairs were 30 eare- 
loaaly I'ade that the chimney became stopped up, and in consequence 
thereof, when the api^ellant .^iade a fire in the heatinr atove on 
its promises, the smoke therefrom, got into the store -^nd premis- 
es of the ..ppellees instead of ,L?;oing up the chimney, th:-t 
thereby th'.i .;;oodu and merch.ndise wer.; injured, Tho case was dia- 
miaaed a; to the defendant Kimbor, There .i.^a ^. trial by jury, 
which resulted in ;- verdict and juigmont for ^"^500.00 ..giinst the 
ppollant. This appeal i;5 proaeouted from the iuifment, 

Thi^ evidence showa, th;.t the appellant ovmed oc- 
cipied a t./o story brick building on the north eust corner of St, 
Puul and Sp-.ulding Streets in tho city of Spring VEley; and that 
M joining the buildin: of appe:i:..nt, there was a two tory brick 
uuilding, owned by lilrs. Mury Devlin, >/hich <yaa occupied by the 


0S88 .oW .aaO 



b-ir,MhZ t-'cesIXeqq;; e^IJ YCf bevaemmoo v^\. :M0£i elxIT 
^jfn. .-I&qqi oiit taata-^^s ^eieni'xs.q 'c.a yenruiH .0 .V/ Lnii 3£oJLaia.uS .L 
Y^io erii' ni jiocfmJtJf ."? dqotioX, I -; ,YnjiqrrioO Ij.5oO yeXLuV aaliqS 
•^ Oo \ id" ro'i do-^i^^L tluvoo^i ot jYS-^-f-^'V gnliqS lo cfuroo 

iJ- (i ijsnwo 8eli)nj-;rioa.em lo ^fooi-e 
rne.'jpsurfoo ax i^e . t ^0 eeaimaxq udi otnt onuic riold* «^oo8. 

.11 bm^ ^njilXeqqii edt lo sonoalXsen L8s»XIji lo 
.q - jtinxrlo ad;}- rfoidw ycf ^xoxixaldo ~ no eniijq 

.3 einsibn&liab edi it-odd- eegaXX^ nol^i;iijXo8L orfT 
-ea-.o 08 870W 8iJti:q©a edi t^^di Ln^ (Y&miiixlo nii^o^roo o zlsiqei oi 
eoflstrpesnoo nl bn~B ^qu JbsqqoJe emsv&d y;Btmldc .^rlJ f.:di ebju^.i YXeeeX 
no &vo.+ e , niJjieri srfcf nl stril £ sL^.' ;tn>,. XXeqqj^ orI;f nodv/ t^oeaotiJ- 
-eiMoaq laj^ &io*8 od* o&al (tog jmoalftaeri* 8:fo«e s£l;f ^eoelmoiq c;fi 
Itijd* in «Y©nmlric e,dt qu j^.nloji lo Jt>jse?8ni: eseXXeqq^ edt lo bq 
-Bi. .^ t^"i5v.' ©eii/fi^^iloasni Lnjs eLoo^i edi y^&^»^^ 

»Y^k;(; Y<^ -i^i' dT .asdml}! tnjtiLn&lsi> odj- 0* uj3 Jjeeaim 

6rf;t Jtni :, 0' .Oocr-: lol d-n^mgi-ix/t Jbfli: iotb'x-:.v ni LeJIijE:j:i dcldw 
.d-ns/fijii/f Qdi moil LscfuoRSoriq Jt I &qqj^ eXdT .j-n-tsXXeqqjs 
-00 Lnu Lenv.o tn^: C£sitfq:: fjdj- ;ti;dl tBWoxie eonoLiv© axfT 
,t?. lo zenio: >:oi'icf xiQ:^e ov. t .; Laxqlo 

*££l* JjXi-u {Y»-t-CliV gn : Y*lo edt at e*osi*3 gnlLXur.qB Lnx> Xjju<7 

i^oiid YOiot ovi:t x. ejiw ©a^d^t ,*iiiiXI«qqi) lo ;f,nli;XXnc/ adi gnlnlotJb. 
Qdi Yd Lelquooo bj^a xlL,idw .niXvea y^-M .eiII y^ l;onv.o ^-gatbltv. 

i • » 

lippelleea, and uaed by them ua a store; :.nd in whioh they hud a 
stock of raeroh:.ndi:4e for 3:.1g. There is a party .vail between 
the tvo bijiildings, in .rhioh thore aro three ohimneys; u ohimney 
designated a3 the middle ohimney, - south uhiraney, and a north 
chimney. The north chimney reached down to the lower story of 
the two buildings, and was used jointly by the occupants of the 
buildings. The appellant had a heating 3tove in it3 building, 
which connected ./ith the north chimney; the appellees also had 
a heating stove in their store ./hich w.-s ulao connected '.vith the 
north chimney. In March 1910, the appellant employed Joaiiph F, 
Kimbor, to put a ne.v roof en it'j buildings; to remove thti tin 
roof, -vhich wafj then on, and instead put on a p^roid paper roof. 
The evidenjo tends to show, th^-t after Kimber had removed the 
tin roof, he discovered, that the chim.noys v/ero defective, ..nd 
heeded repair -.vork, A man by the name of Ifci-ssa was thereupon 
em-loyod to repair the chimneys; and the chimneys including the 
north chimney -.vero repaired. There is conflict in the evidence 
as to iJho employed Uassa to repair tho north ohimney; there is 
evidence tending to show, th;.t he was employed by thei appellant 
to do thj .vork; alio evidence which t^nds to show th^.t he was 
employed by the a ;ent of lirj, Devlin, who .vas the owner of the 
building occupied by appellees. Early in the morning i..fter the 
repuir work had been com leted, one of the employes of the ap- 
pellant's bMxidlng 3iii±ahxwa.?.:ssnneQtaii::withAtk« stiirted a fire 
in the ho ting stove in the .-ppell>. nt 's building whioh was con- 
nected 7/ith the north chimney, and about an hoxir later, ./hen the 

[ appelleeo got to their store, it ./as discovered, that th^: smoke 


i from thi.s heating stove instead of going up the chimney was po\ir- 


I Ing into appellee's storu, !.nd had damaged their stock of raerchan- 

1 dise. One of the controverted natt-rs en the trial w^-s the amoun t 

i:xiw ni bci:. jeico^a s-, b^> merfd' yd Levis hasi ,eesIXeqqi3 

Y*i-^"' -' '-^ ©IGXIT ,&LiB tot Or;livn.:rl$)^effi Jo ::ipo;ti 

Y©nialr! j/tmlilo eeorf* ©xr> stod^ xicldv.' nl j8y,niLXJ:i(rcf ov-.j- Qri^ 

d^^non i^eamldv diuoe -. ,Yaninxrir aXhiJlsi od.i aii ie^JangiBet. 

Jb^sji oeXja BoelXe..,- amldo xi;fion bdf d^txv. l;o*o«mioc xfoJtri* 

orI.t 'i&h" tv^oennoo 6eX-i e iv/ riolilv- oloSb itedt rrJt svod-e 5nitj:arf i 

ol. tn^IXsqqjs "©rftf \OXeX rIo:udiI rrl .Yenurfd-o d:f*EOf 

ift ovoCTst of iB-gnibLtLr<J e^tt no looi iwan £ itifq -ot tiLo<flal5 

,'1001 To-.vr Lio'x/.q -: no ;ttrq bj^^^Bnt Lrtii »no n^xlt 6'j3W dottt*i tlb<y'r 

L^ .. -r.-^dftii:s letl^ *-3d;i- tworie oi- eLnot ozn&btre "edl 

•it;' "^ g^-,'}-ix.Il orfif /iidJ \i)©ieVooelJb ^£f"^,Ttoc>ri lifd 

rf*' Yd nrjn A ,:(i6w lljjqon U©i>eor 

ad: . _; {GYSfXailrio odf rlj.'.qQl o&'^box^tqttti 

©oil. „: _ _ toiXlnoc ai ni-rfT .Leilxiq&z'GiBVXBamldo ditoc 

f.i -j^rtjiif ;vont«irio diton t;;' i jSBBiJf iiOYoXqci© oriw o* 'fei 

v,'r' 1 '.-.T D v.i.rrp o* 3rilLne:f ©on©LIv« 

..X.:.. ;.,.-w...... _.,X.: jJfTOw odi 61 6i 

— ,iiiXv9C[ .ctiM lo^"-!^!-"- 9d;t y^ ijetolqnre 
f^r ...... . .i-^ " ■• ■{fi.'^ .BesTro'T.' ,- -.-xqLrooo gnlLXIifc 

-:.- 3Y0 Iqra& . : . . .u ^^ lO neocf L^rf :fioi» lixiqot 

©1 ' ' - »di>.d*iw;.iiaiaa««Oi.- ..„ii(K ■Qtiihttud e*'*n^Xt©c 

-no. '"'"■' • '+■- '''^r.,y-. edcf ni svo^e gnl^-jaexf ©xn'^nJ 

&di - ' .1... uiiu^ .Yenmldo di-aon'^'Qri* at Ivi Thibet 

-- - '-' --a - ; ,-(j. Qg^ jQg B6©XX©qqi 

"■■^^- -j:^',!::! oYojfi 3nl^j:;oxl Rlri* mo a! 

u Jbnai jOTOitB a*o©Xf©qqjLi o;fnl gnj 
e&ii>voztaoo od& lo snO ,©8 21 

■ . ■ .. !.. .,..}.. :* 

of dumageg whioh the ropelleo suffered on ac.jount of the amoke. 
To provo the amount of the damage, the ...ppellees o.aied '.7. G. 
Smith, ;.3 a .vitnoL^a. Smith had examined the stook of morch;.n- 
difcj© in the ratore aboiMk ton days after the injury. Objection 
was made to Smith' a t&fltimony on the grounil that a proper found- 

tion had not been laid for its admission; that it did not appear 
that at the time ho made his examination .„nd inspect ion of the 
3tock it v/ag in the amme condition in whioh it v/ag at the time 
the smoke had injured it. The oomrt allowed the testimony to to 
given however on the promise of appellees, that they would furnish 
this evidence later. The ajjibollees did not do so, and thereupon, 
later in the trial, the court on ita own motion, struck out the 
testimony of Smith, and direct.?d the jury to diaregiurd it, V/e are 
of the opinion, that the testimony was properly stricken out; but 
error is a33ip:ned on the court's action in permitting the testimony 
to be given ./ithout first argueing the preliminary proof; and it 
is claimed that striking it from the record did not do away with 
its injurious efiecjt, aiter the jury had hear-d it; and that there 
fore the error was not cured. Smith had placed the appellee's 
damages, ana the dopreci-.tion in the value of the goods in stock 
at $3000; and there was a wide difference between Smith's estimate 
of the damages to the stock and th;.t of the only oth-r witness 
outside of the appellee B;.mrick. V/e are inclined to the opinion, 
that under the oiroimstances here presented, the error of permitt- 
ing Smith's t'jQtimony to be given to the jury, was nut entirely 
cured by aftervrards excluding it; and that in this respect, it 
comes within the prinoinles announced in Smith v. Kink iJ 1 111. 
App. 620; C. C. Ry. Go, v. Rubles 13G 111. App. 333; Chic ..^o City 
Ry. Go. V, Gregory :a?,l 111, 591; Pierce v, Wolf Mfg. Co, 154 111. 
App, 660, V/e are also of opinion that the court erred in the 

— 3<- 

smAit »rf*-.lo Saisosii} arid" ovoiq oT 
" ti/O'iji ©TGKta srl# at oaib 

tjlroo ^T .*i JLoixftAJt i'iiri eioiTs oricf 
V /riT?- oelmo'iq siif Jio isvowoxC novJtg 

in odT .aoiJ-al eonftblv,© aid* 
'•MA>o »ri;t tXiili* ©d:> «jt i»*jF>i 
-idJtL i;n-; tii^JtmB ^o ■v:'Jowirf•Bt 
: '^i<fOc oift no, i>©a;glEeJ5 ei .'soaa^ 
*eii'X iuodtti. nevig od oi 
; ■iint^iif&,t.i^d& Jt>eBf|r.Xo ei 

' . . .ron eijy* aoii© ods^ ©lol 

>foo:?. ; .f ro ^t: .tcQ^qel) orit'lyxa ^etjgjcniijij 

s:f£inlj.: ' .V 03£id:f Insi {(K)0€$ t£ 

"^i- •■^enrr/ptcio ori* aojb/rx; ;t£d:t 

X-i^fJif^J' ^ngmite^^ a'd;f.iin8, 3nl 

^•i »*'• a.^oJ:;Xoxe et)iJ2niet1e jd baiv. 

.1X1 i Ll.-ii , :~i-r.t-:c -rit nir'r^Iw aeraoc 

^JtT) o ■ o/rfD icfP .rr-A ,rrx ^^^ o^Xd^rH .■, . , . . , .:^8 .crqA. 

-'" ;X92 .:xi xss y?^osq^ .v «90 .y^t 

rafuaa.1 of aome of the instructicng .luestioned by the appellant. 
Instruction 35, -./hioh the aourt refused to ^ivG, but hud reference 
to the testimony of the r/itneaa Chad./ioh. The ;v.ppe]loes over u.p- 
pelli^nt's objection proved, tha.t Chi-d./ick, who .t.s in the employ of 
the apr)ellunt, a,g civil engineer, v/ag on the roof of appellant's 
building, and >.ras looking on , :vt th>: time the chimneys in qiieation 
were being repaired; and it was claimed by appelleog, that thes-j waa 
evidence to show that the work of repiar was being done by author- 
ity of , or under the super vision of the appellant' There .Taa no 
proof that Ghad./ioh ./<..3 on the roof for that piirpoae, or by the 
authority of the appellant. In this state of the evidence the ap- 
pellant v/as entitled to have Instruction 25 given because it in^ 
formed the jury, that the appellant .'{i^a net in any way bound by 
Chad.vick's presence on the roof, nor by any knovirledge he might 
have acquired concerning the v/ork that '.ras done. The .^-ppellant was 
also entitled to have Instruction No. 26 given, vifich correctly sta- 
ted the law cone .rning the bixrden of proof, n rnely, that the burden 
was not upon the appell .nt, t-. pvo-^e that 14 did not employ Maasa 
to repair the north chimney; but th-t it was upon the ^ppelleea 
to prove that f:.ct. V/e thinl: th^t the appellant, aaa alao entitl- 
ed to have the ,1^^y instrctod, as it requested in Instruction No. 
39; namely, thi-.t if the jury believed from the evidence, th«.t Maasa 
was employed by the agent of Mrs. Devlin, and that the appellant 
did not employ him, to iiu^ke the rcp.-irs in question, that then the 
jury should find the appelli.nt not guilty; also instruction No. 30, 
■isrhioh is to the effect thiit if the jury .v re unable to a^y^ whether 
or not the appol^lant employed Uassa to the north ohimeny, 
that they aho-ol l find the appellant not -P^ilty. V/e find no other 


cc;: ..ri* tioi:. aoi;tou'x;J-snI 

tJloiwL^O .1-4.iJsC* ,i/8VO'xq .noi*o©|,cfo ^'tfi^JlIeq 
. * , . -iodiii:>4fls XJLvio BJB t^ni^XXsqqiiolul^ 

B-toK iLs-iiijjqa:! gixlocfp,ai»w 

. :lqa3 lo ^1Q^ ofit tasit HQdb ot &otti)blVQ 
Oi ' 10 aolalvx&aum.sdi Tolais . \ti. 

-qi; ©d* aoneLlva oii:^ /B siild" «I ♦^njaXIoqqjs ©if it ^o x&tiodii. 

asvig Co nQxJ'ow:i;rBnI »vi$ri q* L8X*l;J-no B«w4^i;XXsq 

'CCf LfiL- : .J- tX^^C -^* ijSfliiol 

;^^:f ;[^ov ed;t gixiniQoaoo b9i^up04 ov£.d 
. rT/l Aof ictftclefll- evjBil Oi bslttiat oai 
:■ .. i* 5ni:. ^*il tidi bpi 

nmirfc f<;fioa ©jtU aijuqoi otf 

Si- f«^# mj(.'m ot .rftxrf ^pXqm© ;^o^ hlh 

*Ofc . ,iil LXjuoxia X'wt 

nerliedi odt o& bI dcld* 

x'^amiA'ii cltion . -;i/Ioqq^ edt :top. 10 

subataiitiu.1 errors in th-.^ record oonoerning the edmiasion or 
rejection of oviience. Ccncorning the oross errors as;^jigned, 
appellees eontend, thut the lidmission in evidence of Exhibit 
2, .vaa erroneous. Exhibit :i is u v/ritten statement made by 
the witness J. F. Kirhber and si:aied by him. It ;ontains mat- 
ters whiuh the appellant cl;.iraed wore at variance -.vith the 
testimony, '.Thich the v^ritneasj gave at the trial. The ./itness' 
attention was clled to the statement; and he admitted, that 
he made the statements v/hich v/erc claimed to be at variance, 
and testified to the circumstances under which he made them; 
and the circumstances under .vhioh he signed the writing con- 
tai n'ng them. We arc of opinion that the Exhibit ./as proper- 
ly admitted in evidence, and th . t it kvas proper for th;; jury t 
to consider the statements made by the .witness in the Exhibit, 
in connection with his testimony given at the trid concerning 
the same u^nttera. None of the other cross errors are argued, 
and they are therefore v;aived. For th.j errors pointed out, 
the judgment is rover r^ed ci.nd the o-use remanded for another 
R Reversed and rem.-nded. 


V. ■'^' I, 


.1 ! ^: . 

i. tnota^Qbul Bdi 


SECOND DISTRICT. f ^^- I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court, 

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, 
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in 
the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of 
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty. 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

^<'' ^"w^^ 


Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the /ixth day of April, 

in the year of our Lord one thousand/ nine hundred and 

twenty, within and for the Second^is trict of the State of 

111 ino is: / 


Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL/ Pres iding Jus t i ce . 

\ / 

\ Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAl^, Justice. 

Hon. OSCAR E. HEAgD , Justice. 


ARTHUR E. SNOW,^ilerk. 
CURT S. AYERS,/Sheriff . 


^9l.^. 6^^ 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on 

Ul/i Z^ ]9/(jthe opinion of the Court was filed in 

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures 

following, to- wi t : 

Gen. No. 6G55. 

Olver H. Suaton, 

Defendant in error, 

V3. G Error to County Court of 

George P. Se.'.ton, individually, ..nd ^^^^^ °^^^*y- 

aa oonservator of the est;-tw of 
Oliver H. Seaton, insane. 

Plaintiff in error. 


Per o\iri ra. Certain ^oroceudings v/ere had 

in the oounty court of Buxo; u County, .-/herein 01iv.::r H Scton .va3 
found to he and was ooininittsd to the Watertov/n Aaylum end 
a oonservator .laa L.wnointed for hia estate v/ho qur'.lified and ent- 
ered upon hia ofiiGft:l duties, Oliver H. Seaton has sued out a 
.vrit of error irctn this court to review aiad proceedings, and he 
cl ina that the county court of Bure:.u county obtained no jurisdic- 
tion to ra..ko said orders for v^.rioua reasons. The 3t:^tute under 
which this proceeding v/:.h3 had ^ro••ide3 for a reviev/ thereof by ap- 
pe...l to the circuit court. Defendant in error has m-do .:• notion 
to dismiss this v/rit of error for v/:-nt of jurisdiction. The a; rae 
question wa.j presented to -.nd pa:^;ed upon by thia coux-t in the Gor- 
araan v. Cooper, 125 111. App, 403, except th .t there the alleged 
insane person had been served .vith orocess and broia^^ht into court, 
-rhile here it is contended th;^t auoh 3ervi:;e ./.>.s not hud. But the 
principle there laid do./n ia applicable here. In the ca.e there 
cited of Ailorton v, Hopkins 160 111. 448, it \r...s held that ahere 
in a special statutory prooeeding one form of revio.v ia apeoifio- 
-lly given all other forma of revievsr are excluded. The case before 
us ia a special statutory proceeding, .^nd a rev. ew by an appeal to 
the circuit court is gr ,nted, . ni no other mode of review is ;ro- 
vided. Therefore, under the authority 1 st cited, no other rorm of 
review a:-n be had, und the case c -nnot be reviewed in this court 
by writ of error. If some other irode of roview should be provided 




.eeSS ,oK .neO 

^noJ'j^iaS .H aevIO 

."uou&xlv. ^xtasjc.0 tfijeitfS lo itatroo YJ-ruroo edi n ' 

'88 Bid rol baittloqq^ i.£m io;fiiV'iQenoo . 

. -'-'■ '. .4oJt>!to Elil Roqu bBiu 

^iv&i t>:l- ii-'ii;©*:. r,ldS cioTlY 'loiie !to jfixt 

zol ensbio tixje eal.:an o:t no It 

3niLo8oo:rc- elilit xfcirf- 

iiO-i. J .lOi'iy ni .txi-c-ijxi . ,■- -^iyc^xc vdt ot Xt;9q 

nl J J?:..:., c j...„ .t LoJflft&enq ei,;w no Jcd-etm.r 

. iqA .III 5EX ^aeqooO .v nisrae 

3'^-:^-'" rii nvvoL LlusX eaedd' elqlonli' 

B'lsxiv . <}X enlJfqoH .v noJioIiA 'to JLo^lc 

'-^iAi'. -ibseooacf Ytto^tr*iirf-e Lalo&qe -'> ni 

ivaa ^o eatLOl isd&o Ilr^ nevig ^^^^ 

tb^Goo'io x'^otu&iitv LiiiOQqB « el sx; 

bl ^"woo itsjonto &dt 

nx' , a tco '18 'xarlT .teLiv 

7'ii;«/C- biocf .- . l>jijl o(S n^-c Vveivei 

LbJbJtVO': -&n;}0 ewot 11 .aoais io ^tlir/ \c 


tha-t argument should be addr eased to the le^islaturs. This writ 
of error i.5 therefore di3mi:3«ed. 


SECOND DISTRICT. \ ««• I, ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, 
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in 
the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of 
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty. 

Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

fiT» • 851ft2 

MnBT I. MdiTaisiKvauL. 

A9P«»I1 •«• 

219 ^-^^ ^^^ 

nU fUMIX^IlfG JV2TSC' TAYLCa (}*liT9r«d ill* 
opinion Af ilM a»urt, 

TlM plftiatiff, lioiteywai* lir«u«ht suit in tte 
@iKI»«rior Jourt ««»inst tbc^ d*f<maaat for «»aMi«*ion» upoa 
mn «ll*(g,i»di iwJ.* of •*rt«ia notor tmoiui, mnd obtctlB<i4 
J«ul<wnit in th« e>um or $164d«64, this a#p«ftl 1b t}mr«frea, 

flM 4«ol«J«tioia oPMiinto of th* oeaMon count* • 
aittAolMi4 to Y^o^ io o ^^3l of i>ftrtl<»alAro, Th« lot tor 
••to »p (I) tlmt ti»nr« vao duo tho plAintiff on iiojr 16^ 
1917, tho oion of $T99»M for his •orviof^s In oollinfi ion 
tru<dco, (2) that thoro van duo Mm 0» iiajr 1«, 1917 • #64, M 
for otJMr «>«Kiooioao» ond (3) thot thoro woo duo hia en 
Mnjr 16* 1917, for ooandeoioao for th« »al« of motor tjrudcs 
•inoo S«y%«nb«r 8t* 191d, ivoing n ^nuo of onA 9or oent on oil 
iruoko oold, thn oun of |lOSf«70. tint totol ootount oluia«d, 
nnd ooi uy in tho hill of partloulnro io il9M«Gl, 

Tho nffidoTit of aorlte ndnlto that thoro io 
duo tho ploinUff tho oun of $34,34 Imt dMilnii liability for 
(ither of th« other two itA::iii« 

iho ovidonoo in th« rooord oonsioto of oortoin 

«xhibit8 mnd the testiinony of avTen witnesses. For the 
plaintiff » i' addition to himself, there testified (1) 
Maude L, tfuerehison, who was the head stenographer of 
the defendant during the time in question, and vtio oyer- 
■aw the card-prospeot system, the follow up system which was 
■ade "bj the defendant, and who took dictation from Crane, 
the General Manager of the defendant company; and (2) 
Xdna Orgel , who was, also, in charge of the card-prospect 
and follow-up system, and who, sometimes took dictation 
from Golden, the Assistant Manager of the defendant oom^ 

As to the item of #793.91, which the plaintiff 
elalas as ooauaissioa upon the sale of ten motor trucks, 
the STidence on hehalf of the plaintiff, made up of certain 
ezhlMts and the testimony of himself and the witnesses 
Muerohison and Orgel, is amply sufficient, taken by itself, 
to Justify the judgment; and so, the suhstantial question 
is whether the eyidence introduced on behalf of the defend- 
ant sufficiently orercomes that on behalf of the plaintiff 
to justify tts in concluding that the rerdict of the jury was 
manifestly or clearly wrong. After a careful analysis of 
the STidence we feel hound to answer that question in ths 
negatire. The plaintiff was a motor truck salesman and went 
ts work for the defendant on February 1, 1916, and on Sept- 
ember 25, 1916, his ein:>loyraent relations with the defendant 
were set forth in a letter, of that date, which was addressed 
to him by the defer? dajit company. The letter and its parport 
ars not controverted. It prorided that he should receire 
a salary of $50.00 a weak and a commission of two per cent 
en all retail sales "that are sold at list price or at a 


j,.!-«F« o \, i -^ v — .-.t. *«.' . .-.kiV.' 

■ . i .?. ./ rt X , !€• , S ©V^ 1 c 

prlo« thfti nwft InoIuAiag th* «*!• •r ••oon«i )wii« truoUt, 
!••• Uum 15;ji ftff from list prieff". (a) tiMi iw «t»uXd rw 
o«iY« ** ttMMsitsion of 6tt« |^«r ovnt en idl truoks »oi4 t* 
Vationnl U««r» Mr <ijtu»ntity Oiitrt wlu» rjt* <;iT«n « ditoouiit 
•ff fro* li»i pri«t thai n«ts •!•••* itooft fift«*n f«r o«iit 
eft tram Xiai pri9«*« (3} ttwt he sliiiaA re^MlV* » M««i.»sioa 
vtmi Hi* ftalM r«««lM4 "» lA«!g«x> toIuma thM» Hoo»OCC>«00 
of 1|( on oaIoo UMt oricimaiy vers fiaur«4 at « 2j( oo»> 
AisKiOBt nja4 1/9 of l^ GB K*tienal Uoors &oX«e that not uo 
loon tiina 15)S off froM Hot prioo^d Miu (4) taat tht ojitara 
MMKioftioaii W(<ro to 1m jMki^^ 1/9 «ji ooon o« tbe crons aaloo 
r«««lio4 #lco«OCC*00« ih« ^laiMioo wlMn tlM srooo ooloo 
ro»«ho4 liattOOO.OO, but »XX oxtm oonsaoslotto to >m poid 
wlthlB 0B« x^MUTa HBdl ftlX r«iiEttXoY ooaawloolOBo to bo p«i4 
■OBthX/ OB buqKi tTUQko fto hovo iMftOB 4ollvoro4 orU 9Aid for* 
Ttao plaintiff merkntA under th» eeatroot uBtil «ub« X8» X9X7* 
8lo work, oooerdlBs to his tooilMonigrt wnd which Xv not 4eniod, 
mui to oolX §\x 7h truoko bo had \woa Xietod to him oo a pros* 
pootf or ottoh BO ho "dufl up* or vrhioh w«r9 fiXod ond on whiah 
ho Bodo r«?&rt« to tho offio0« 7ho dofoBtent kopt a obtA oftd 
foXlow>if RjrotOB of porooaaX <»lXo« toXtrphono onXXo V tho 
ooXooMBn, Xottoro roooiYOd and tho oubotanoo of letters writ* 
ton hr tho dofoBdani, i« faot» a ooapXoto rooord* Tho aaotor 
oard BBO ftXS, and ooBtaiBOd tho bbbo of tho proopoot, tho 
41otriot» tho bbmo of tho pwr^MMiBS acoBt of tho obo who wao 
XiahXo t« War. tho noBo of th* o«XoaMafl to wmbb the proopoot 
BOO aofii«BB4, alX of tho oaXXo of tho oalooBOB, vhothor ^ 
toiophoBO or othorviaB. aad, bo toatifiod to )gr tho witBOOO 
■BBTBhiaOB, who Im4 ohargo of tho ajrotOM, a ooBpXotn ahotraot 
•f Bhat BBO dOBo iB oBOh aaao. It vbo tho aothod of tho 4o» 
fBBdaat thBt OBOh proopoot ahouXd ho hoBdlod onX/ Iqr tho ono 


. 4 
i« wTioa it wum •» i«a«d, T)»t was pnljr Tarl«d Igr scmm t»«olal 

thre)ji8to njft4 a s«l« olo»9<i, it w»s ihtr aastMi of th« 4l«f«iid«iit 
%• «iT« «r«4it to tk« MiloaaMUl wi« Jtma hau olmrg* of tlut 
9r»«|^««t* #»•« %hM 4«t« on th« Oi:ird«a Mnor^ viui mi4o out 
fyow ti«o t iiao tyyowritton »«mofius4* of proopvotivo pyuFm 
olMiooro iui4 the 4Lmf% upon i»>iioh onlla •taeulfi be fluido, mmI 
tJooAO ^•mormnim wer« j^l«oo4 oa tho deako of Vm oaleieMoa 
to wltoa th« p«rtioular proopooto iMiloiKKOd. ^snpiig th4» oajrdo 
woo Ano of tJM TiMTOtii TooMiac dMipMqr. TIm witaooo lliMnroUaoK» 
kMwft otoMcroptior and in eAuifSKO of t)i4^ oajrAot oa/c that ate 
r«o» thai 010*4* tti»6 thai alto Lo&ara Crane* iho is&taig;«r« 
Civo 4ir*atioa£ t<* %im jpladatiff in rat^nrd tc^ the Tiasreth 
Toatainc ^umMatsrt ^^^ ^* ^^ >^^ «^ ^^3L<lb be ttouIc t»sr to 
tho jaeintlff "Icoep after t«t?» liothftnroll** '♦^i'lmt hfere you 
j<M»»rd about &h> Ti^aroth deoi?'': tlmt H«! va:^ oontimaaXly oagr* 
iag Ihftt tm\ oaXllag him in tma wekina )aim vliet h^ tmji hoard; 
th<!;ta to K<^r )a»vtlm4^t ao ordor oao ever siTon to take tho 
44if«adttat off tho TiMtroth proo^oot. 

Tho vitaooa OrgoX* who «aa at ooxle thore ma a 
otoaoiprayhor aad had* ia part* at X«»aai» ohaj^o of tho 
oard ayatOM* oorroboratoa tho foraar wltaoas, &ht oar* 
that ahoa thor« aaa anor oonfliot ao to a proopooi tho 
aattor would b« takoa uy and atrali£htoaod out anci th« aaloo* 
m&m givoa appropriata woiMraada to atop oalliac, oto.; thai 
aho nvTor oroto nor wao dir^otod to arito to tho plaintiff 
vit^da tho tlMO ia ^uootioa oa tho Tiauroth or Worth Mtor 
Sorvioo doali that in Majr or Juao, If 17, a fow wookt boforo 

tho ylaiatiff loft* Orwo took out tho naotor oard in thi 
TiAvath Toaaiac Co.* aattor aao aaid aoi to lot tho plal»» 

tiff sMr an/ ^tsmtr »*! -*> o-»&u t;y:* it ual'jwr. h*,-, ;r-"Wite toaJs 
ii a» witii hia, ;lli« fUft^r »iAi«4 th^i in ti««- f4Xl of 
1926 th» 9l^lM%ift vm%t into Cr»n«*t 9tnm mtkrlf mrmry 
niclvt »))«at th« tisrotb or w^rth a««l« in t«^lk it cvor; 
tiMkt •'Hf ofi«a In th« &9iri)H4t •! 1917 » lk»%r<i Jrane t«Il %}» 
j^lAiatiff to §«t tn te«^ with tfe« Tlitiwth deal w> tfe^t It 
Muld ki« <Am9Wk* Orikn* a<)feKiti«4 on «re»«««!X»K)la&tion th»t 
to, lda««Xf • h«4 iL«fti|e»«4 this limx^th prt^p^ot to the 
9l«iAtiff« rhtiTi!^ wut pttt i«i •ri'6»no« \f^ Um plfrlntlff , 
lhiri«93i li»t8» vhi«h }m4 '^•tm gXram him b«tif#«A s«>t«Ml!»«r 
'M, 1916, fm^ iivijf 24 « I91t, of proapftotlTtt t>u7<ahft«9r«« «nft 
«f v^iah x»M timrmXh. f»»\ins ^a, ?h9 plaintiff titstifi«<r ilutt 
the ^isKTOth pro«>39ist »a« aat t4a«iiign«4 ^<vtwi<:''n S«|)tftn^r 99« 
i91i« ami Jun« 1&« 1917» to «in,3> otH«r »«il«»WRn. Th« «t1« 
iit«a«« is 0T«rw)i#li«diit th^t t}»e ?inintifr «sli«<li u,9«f) th^ir 
latt«ir co:i»psny « «:r<mt ^sanjr ^ia«?«!J !,'.j]»teaib«r 26, i«to1f#r li, 
Oetftbtr 17, ^4«rt«1»»i' M4, 0«t»lf»r SC, ?foT»!idl»«r 17, toTaa^fr 21, 
Ji«*«eilM»;r &, 1916, »nl Janunory 6, 1917, %ii<i «n4ei!»v«r«4i to ir«t 
it to imrahftn* trucilrft #r I'ht^ (S«f«7!s4Hnt, al8«« th&t he coli«it« 
«4 tH« o«(»|»«iny After it A«4 ottuts^td it» nftsr^, Th« Timreth 
t««mine 'JitmpisMgF wft« (r>rig«^Rift«4 1tgr r^ f. ^rth, urne mkc itn 
jprr»ic«jt, is Martds »r April, If 14, tuati nloeut ,*J«ir«h, 1917, 
it» n«Kt wtif daan«iKl t» th« ??*rtli «»t«i' rwmri©'^ 0»«>ftay, 
tia? ?ii»r«t«» f««ni»« »ii»«!ar fe«« H»ttr»»* •<«»«^ tnicao, at i#»»t 
fiix* In Itttreh or >ipril, 19U, fr«« thn «iof«arta«t o^m^taqr, 
Tittroih waf Vine Presia^wt tmi i»rms^9r of th^ Ti«r9tb fnamm 
&ag OMq^any until he r«iKignftd in Jfmmry er y^fbrumtr, 1917* 
mmt 90B9«33y >»id tic offio* in the Clct '«lonar BiiiXdinic iin<i n 
lpftV*«;e out OR Oarroll eronwe, Ti»»roth hod chare* of th* 
pt'&atiaAl affair* aa4 offiuftd at. ti5« garago, wlioro tho 
tTttoktt woro kopt, Cn Doovwilior 22 or S3, 19ie, n fiTO eoeurro . 

m% th« Tiaarotla 7<»alB£ adaqpaajr** ^i»9«« ijuea thm ¥l«rotli 
t#«aliic OoapMar «m er««mti«<& in March, 1914 « it liewi&Ki six 

th« fir«« B«ti>««ii Steroh »• «a«i ^£ji^ 19 « 1917 • th« d«f«adaai 
•wqpaflyr sola t«n trucks %c ttket mrth M0tor 0«rTi<3#< Cum^^y* 
TlM alMir« i{»«ntion«<l it«a of |793«91 iu U10 mmiinuion vhi^h 
%hm |»lftXRtlff aiisilttM h» 1» <mtil.l«4i m on ih# s»l« of ttauM 
t«n truak». Wrth totttified tSiat I^Im ^laintl^f did ma t ••11 
tJMM} that h«», ^orth* hR.4 ih« n«g^ti«ti«itt(i wjlt^ Cr«n« of 
th« di«f«iiuftnt ooiq^iiagr •tiortly «tttfr th^ flro 1» D«e«»til3«r 29, 
X91ft$ tikMt Mo o«a» <HM>^ys« Wtortta.. «»■ iM>x1cl«g for th« dofmUk 
flort «t U»t tin« mid talked to Mia about It, Imt tt, 1« tho 
eirideooo of Soor^o fortte %l*at hi> l«ft th** d«sf«nidi5j3t Qoe^«^r 
about F«bru«jry 15, 1917, nn«5 h»«? only «©yk#d thpre tr«m 
^otobor 9, 1916, and »0 on«<^ of th« trac^o vab oort^utlly oold 
until oithor ftOM« tiau» iit yobruf cy or attreh 3, 1917, «C4 
fttrther, tko^Ofoing; to th<» tcotimongr of Oroito, thr prl^•i dont 
of tho tlof«iidRftt osmprntifjii, thot '^roopoot mn «osigfi«{i t^ tho 
plaintiff, «b4 lag» «oi^o<t on it isisei^uoualjr froa i(Opt«Kb«r 
2«, 1919, up to anii inol^^ding tb« tiiB« whoii All ton w«r« 
aotually oold. :^ano, himiolf, tontifioa ttet tho jilitiA* 
tiff taUcod «itJa hlK about tta* Tiaroth T«aiii«c Ownyaigr •• 
a proapootlYo purohaoor in tho firoi «««k in /aniHunr* 1917* 

Aaalysa4 oarofully, it i» to bo oboorred fr«m 
tho tootinoaar of Oratto, that lie olaime that Worth, th« fathor« 
bomsbt tho truoko throu«£h Ma, Crao*. with th« uiid«>ratan4iat 
botvoon th» oldor Worth and Orano that there a^^uld be no oo»» 
Miooiono ohars^^t or a» ^orth. tho eon vae vrorkiag for tho 
d43fehdaiif . any ooamisaion due hlM should b« waiTOd aad that 
m» boiwoon Carano and ¥orth« tho oldor* there ohould bo a» 

<*Te^c ''»jST 


«a««««n In •« Um ikmUt Cr«iMi*« ttmtimon/, tit«n, if it 
#«%«ia.iHi^« nuisr UiM^* is t« tK* •ff«ot thnt, &lthOtt«ii Im 
)ife4 asaign^ct th« 9ri»0epot i« the ptadatiff , mm Admits ih»t 
ih« i»lAanUfr ««rk«d fer « long ti0» en i%, ana lathoogh 

hfi d»#ft iM>t olfii» 4h«t It ^--Ki r«^;ularly tak«it fro.^^ him be* 
for« ftxiy ««tl0 \nk» »»d«» jr^t, iiiMMttioh «« h«, (&:«««, ««« 
Worili, i^e «ld«r, Msa th« timake w^r* »old» an h« oXai,a»( 
lay hifiui«Xf • with tiM ft»r<iftt«ito« of worth. th« eon, «h6 l«ft» 
lipwrr^r, 1»«f«r« the firist 9f th« t#n truest; m* »ol<a« and, 
a« It ws« uad«fsrto64 tlmt if tiier«r w*r«p najr «oei»i i^ttioim th«Qr 
»houId V* O0n«i4«'r«il urn ««ni«d Iggr W»rtkt tli« xtmi, ^nu not 
iUMurg«d» th* pleiintiff i» »«t «ntitX(»4 to majr^ oc^oaXtfvion^ 
JVmt wh«it ^ao-tieulisij' iMflu^BCo* &ikd »ll th&t wliitih fiit»>lly 
aulMin&\.«a iB 9«r»yia4iB«c tii* \iiorth m$»r Q«TWi<$e CoHpwny to 
bujr «« do not yooitivoly and oon^l«toijr koo«» nor is it 
noo«o»*xy* It imiiit %t ooiisiattr«id fts « praotioal mmk not a 
»oUt|>i^«i«*l •ituAtioA* la wm<M «t ooifiiMMiraiol oituAtioa and 
giToa %iM »Yidoft<»a tliat was |»r«tt«nted to th9 Juyy «• tiievB 
%9r tiM reoord* WaariilK la niad tl»^t it ie tMtelttod that 
tho prospeot iws ^T«a to the j;»lftiatlff , «kiid oot d^mitd thst 
for awnt^ ho Miy)eo4 aosidMOttsXjr itpoa ii» itad that fiii«dl/ t«a 
tmoko ir«r« sold. v« do iiot «t ail f««i oariouoljr porauadad 
that the trordiot waa wroais* lot alona, e}.«ajrljr wroa$» 

Tiiojra io ««»« t^m%%jmwff \y both tho vortha a« to 

eoaT«rs&ti<sas «lti> the plaintiff ooi^o«mif^ hlo oont^ifcioaa* 
%'h.iQh, twQvrvar, Ir denied 1^ tlM plRintiff» and ao it «ac 
ftu^lttad, with all ta« oth<rr (STidar.oo« ti) t}i« jujry* «« do 
net eonaider it «ub e2wng&i3g th^ ocaolucion already acncunood* 

40 te th«t it«» of $X0&9*76s» Tha «iritt«n pYoaisfr 1^ 
tho dofandaat ia th« lattar of ^aj^toabar 2», 19Id« aaa ao 


follows: "We will agree to gire you a further eommiseioa 
w}:ien your sftXes reach a larger Tolume than #100, 000, 00 of 
1% on sales that origiaally were figured at 2% ooaaiissioa, 
and 1/2 of 1% on Vational Users* Sales that net ue less 
than 15^ off froxa list price*** The contention of the de« 
fendant ia that the sales of the plaintiff did not amount to 
|100>000«00« It ie adaatted that the plaintiff did sell 
trucks to the amount of $65,656.57 between September 25, 
1916, and the time he left, outside of the ten trucks which 
were sold to the Worth Motor Service Company. The plaintiff 
claims that he is entitled to be considered as haying sold 
also the ten trucks amounting to i|33,796«77, which would isake 
a total of #104,453.34. As we hare announced thf?t he is 
entitled to be credited with the sale of the ten trucks, 
there remain the questions (1) did the net price realise 
more than Bb% of the list price, and (2) did the amount 
of the sales of the ten trucks make his total sales, subject 
to the premisii of the defendant to pay an extra one per cent 
eoviissioB "reach a larger roltme than 1100,000.00"? 

(1) The plaintiff testified that the list price 
of six, was $4400.00 each, and that the sale price was 
M705,00 each; that the list price of the remaining four 
was $4300. 00 eaoh and that two of them were sold for #4805.00 
each, and two for $4905,00. According to the plaintiff, the 
total list price was |45600.0C and the total sale price was 
♦47,650.00, Taking the list price at $45,600.00, 85^ of it 
is 138,760.00, and if we then subtract the total deduetions 
claimed by the defendant, that is #8,654.&5, from the sale 
price of #47,650.00, there is left #38,996.75, which more 
than equals Bb% of the liet price. Further, obTiously, the 
selling price actually exceeds the list price as to eaoh of 


til* t«ii tntoics, VlMtlMnr or not the plAlnUff «mi «RUtl»4 
to Acqr «fi«Ntti»»lo» purirauhAt to %m f>xii«i»« in th« Ivit^r 9t 
1H^Um3imr 89 » 19X6 • ttu»t 1»ft d«t«ir»la««jL ■ittply l>y oGamirins 
th« ••Iliii£ yriiKi'Mid th« llet prie«« 

iniftt th« 4«f«iuiaiit titter •«lliiig •«oh of th« t«a 
truiicB, eiiteh «t a ocrt&in prioe« ««w fit t& s&iUee YArlcu0 
«i«duciXeii« f«r fr«ig;hi» hoivit, cto. oou.ld not 7«iii»on«Uly 
%« QonKld«r«d in dAiejmiaiag «i}i«ither o:r not ih« mitt of 
th« t«n tru<ic» w«r« na<l« ftttlNit«iiitif»Xiy titrovMib th« f»ffort« 
•f tlw piftiatifr «ui(i, tii«rf)for«, «i3«ilH»r <ir aot )»• Juad, 
Xttgftll/ eon«i(i«r«<l« Mum«<i o«Hi-^i»i;ioii8. it ie eTca Qtt«»» 
tiemibl* «k«tte«r \lm ii9teni&n% vac «ntAtl<»4 to emicft ausgr 
dv^ttotioaii fr«Bii th« »«iliati; pric« la ocaaputing th« oosmi** 
»toae •aim«<i tmd»r ifek* writt«a prooisc of th<s <i«f«flUant} 
Ml* hBv«T«r, deduotiOBs ««r« mi^ile umA oonsid^rttd bjr the 
juxy, cmd no •ro»8r»«rrttr ie MtftiinKOfi th«r« is no grouiid 
OB tlMt toor* for eur oitemiiinis the verdiot. 

SKI tise »ftio ol tli« ten truokn sunko th* %<»UtX 
mXoo tt^'th^ plctlatiff r<»aoh the total ouift of $l&0,00€«0€t 
It i» a(t»itt«d tlmtt out«id9 of tJM ttalo of th« t«a tiucdco* 
tJM i>laintiff ftoid #66,«&«*ft7 «»rt^ of truokn* if to tiuit 
io addod 156, 990. 7S, to «hi<3h latter «>i,ount tho ^lulatiff 
lo ontltXod to eredit on bio grooe oaouat of saXf^a* wo 
t)*vo on ottovuit in oxoeoo of 1X00, 000* Ci€>, oDowinc tli&t li* mto 
entitled to %hn oxtzm ooflMission of one por isont* TIM tot^iA 
anount io #X0««4M«9S, and tho ecmwiooioa of on« p«r e«at 
ttoieon ift #X046»58« '£his aooount is. th^rmtor^, $84, 34, 
odaittod 1)y tito pXoadiaco, $779*99, boing two pnr oont on 
|S9,995,75. eund »X04d«S3, b«ifif; one per mnt oa tX0«,6SS^.33, 
BMtkins ia aXX #19X(:.38 Tbo Judfiioont aftor ttao roaittitur 

«»• |1635*M. It vUl 1N« «•«»• t]»er«for«» ttet it is ii««d» 

d«dttction«, wa&ui*lia4j to |3tae«c^, on (»eoou»^ of lh» P««rl*«« 
Trudi. QyMMi»B«jni»t«in Tznaciks, CT«rl(Mi<i ooup* and L««»l«iid«r»« 
a«i th« coswtlBcioa on thfft to til »aaount woulu l»« 3,e»» tii«a th« 
diff«r«no« ^i»«tii«oa tlw Ju4g»i«nt ftad the tfu» of ^1010*S6. 

Cem^lAlSi i« »A«© of tte» rwfttotti to «$*▼• t»© in» 
etruotioas for th© def«nti»nt, Xhoso proffer** inetruotionft 
uiid«rt«k« to toll tho Jurjr «ii»t to 4o in m,»9 ix l>«linroo 
tliot tlio "mjtth Motor Seivloo Coa^Majr *irt>ul«S not bovo Wugbit** 
or ■wouXiA not iM&vo puroha««4 *» any actor trttoke from ti» 
Aofoailftiit "ootoopt tJarou«h lt» jftfewmor" or *freio tiw? uofeoA«» 
ant tJurotttOx tlio plsintiff*, wfe»r»»e tta© oniy ^ueiiiion »»•• 
ao reoltoU In aok ijuttniotioii of th* dofeaUAnt th»t v»o giTon* 
iroro tho s&l<?» of tbe truc^c^ iBaa4e thrcvx^h th* offortB of tlio 
pLolatlf f or ti»« 4«f«n4«at» Tfarea in£.truotloiui »er« glvoii 
on >>eljolf of tho pXaiatif f • and ««▼«« for tlio <i«fo««i«»t, ono 
upon on oxoiftliMition of th«n» it «i»i?oar8 to uo, thAt tho Jury 
woro voiy foirX/ inforao«l of tt« law that wft» property etppUsoblo 
to tho oYiOoaoo In tlio oooo. in our t^inion o fsiir trial ono 
iMid ana th«r« io no ouffi«i«nt reaaon foir ov^rturnli^ tiio 
4»d,[Snoat« It Aill, t)sM»i^foro» be affirmo4« 


r: i;i- 


2 «9ia«ijur In tho d««i»iott ttf tida Qa«« &t wanouaccA 
la im for«c»iag •plnioa, A« to d«f«Qia«mt*B «onti»ation ttiat 
MMAmr th« •Tl4«neo, «T«n t>ii>«mli it b« «»B»icli«ir«<i that thit 
plaintiff eoXa t«n trui(&s to t^to wortli iilfttttr Sttrrlo« Cea^Msgr* 
&• was Anilt-led to a ocmaLscloa on o»Iy oa« of %hmi, laaMuialk 
a* dftftsAant, «» fa thf. 9th«r nind tjrudics« did n9% rfterlY* 
a a«t anount «x9«adiiit SS/I( af t^* Ii«t j^rloe, it ftpi[>««r« 
frOBi ttm widen o« that tMc; «a« du« to tk# faat thut e«rtaia 
dcdudtloas and fdldvaao^s wer« »ad« te ttm vrerth ilaier 0«r- 
▼ie« }e^ai9 for |»art« or ^!.oa««fi&rl«)g zuit &aaltt<$9d in th« 
sala af tli« truacK. thm plaintiff** right to a ^omuintiicm 
em the nal^ of a ^iy«n truok* undor hie 8<»traet with tho 
dafimdMit* OMRnot 1»« datortaisod la^ ocna^Rriag th« li»t prioo 
af th« oomplato trueit« with th«» not amount reoifiYitd by th« 
dof«n<'£tnt for th»t tradk* loeo the i^arts nai inrolvod in th«» 
•alo at all. If the |»lftlntift aeld the tratic without tho 
iBady oAd lioinia nnd tho not aia^ant vtimxr«t4 V tim anten^mat 
ea that oalo* p%u* thi* «£»unt allowod for th« body «n«i ^joioto, 
which w«r« not inrolwod in tho »al«, a^grogatod mi aaount la 
oxeaoB of 89^ of tho Hot priof^ or that trudfe, inoludiag hody 
and heiata* th« plaintiff would he fl>ntitl*d to a coits^iveloa 
on thftt oala. Of oouro<»» in d«tor»lBlae th« amtuAt of tho 
eeaaieslon to b« paid th« plaintiff oa ousli a *ala« tho 8^ 
would h# figtirod only on tho arsount r awlTod by tho dofoniaat 
for th« truQic a* aetuall/ cold, oxoludlns; hody »nd liointa* 
In othar wordo, although th« deduatione ««d# for pwrta not 
oald oOiUd not be talcon Into ncaoid^ ration in dotoraininc 
whothwr th« plaintiff waa ontitlod to o oonmitsoion uncer thn 
toraia of hl» ooatraoi, each deductions rhcmld h« tAken into 

Qonaidennlioa in figtarlag th« niacutat of hie^ ao8MBl«ftl»a 
on thoea b«1«« on wiiieh hv. wnv «nlltl«<} to r oowaiiseion* 
Tliftt this WAS ih« MMthod Aotunllji followed V th9 4ef«nd» 
«iit, in oo»n«eticn vit't ooaMiBslontt |ml4 th<? »>l&4ntiff» on 
^•ia«i^ - 4oao 1b>y hin* i« dcsienet rated V KxMHte I, £, 4, 
6, 7, 9, 11, X3, and 14, In the oft«!ft of all smXas lnvolY«4 
la tteco exhibit* th^ set aaeuat r«eeived hy the d«f#n(i(mt 
vee ieee thi^ %6% ef the list prim of the traoAc InvolYed 
in the e«le» whleh vat hy reason of the «lio«anM» lande the 
cuetoaer foe freight or for bodi«^s, heiete or otlMir pArts 
not ineiuded in th» eDle« or for ueed c»r« turned in by 
the oaeten«r« and in all of titose ^.eet? th<? pleintiff w&« 
pnitf hie eoawiaeien und^r >ii» oontrnot* the ooMaai «ieion l^eing 
3% of the net ataicsunt realised on th<> @&le« It <iij}p(>j».re Alee 
thai in eo»« eaeee a dis^oount of liilOC i»»e allows 1 for oaeh 
Ipnid on dellYK^r^ of th'* truok. This wneunt, lUcewiee, 
ehottld net b«r tajcen into 8onei<t«»r«tion in detenalnlns whether 
or not the plnintiff is <^ntltl«di to s oosmieeion* 


320 •\S9tC38 

Appall f^Bt 

rn'mjo, mm 


219I.A. S39 

10l« VKSmimMQ JUSTXCH ;mLQK d«liT«'«<i tli« opinion 
• f thift oourt. 

Th« plaintiff. Mnnxt fieebt, 1»roujght suit for duaagMi 
f«r malioic'ut pro««cRitlon and r»«»T«r«d « Tcrdiot ma4 jud^* 
««nt in th« mu sf $a600,00« Ttaift tt9P««l is ther<»fr»m. 

til* first oftuttt of th« dsAftrsilen «ll«g««l that 
tiM Atf«adiint tmX^tHy m&A ntnlieiously dharged the plain* 
tiff with hnTiac feloniously taken an eleotrio mttOTt rejL» 
«i«4 at |£00,OC, a sat of 4euhl« harness ralusd at $00, C€, 
a aav filar falusd At I76.00, a desk valued at #18*00, ftn4 
a oiMir Valued at $6* 00; that the defendant eaused ths 
Issuanea of a warrant and th« arrest of the plaintiff; and 
that upon an ezaniaation hefere the oeurt tho plaintiff «as 
adjttdired not suiltj and diseb&rgadl*^ 

The aaoend oount allei^ad that on Mar oh 1, 1919, 
Xi» defendant falselj and ttalioiously chaargad t>ie ylaintiff 
with the offense of lareenjr and had him arrested, aftar 
whioh he aas disshargad; by means of whinh he? was greatljr 
injured, to th« danaga ef #5 » 000, 00. 

The defendant iM' ended net guilty. The evid«noe 
shavs suhstantially the followiagt* In July, 1912, Julius 


H«eht • th« fmthmr of tb« plAlntlff • and th« ^ittmn^mnt, 
•ao}) of vhoii «fts la th» biaaeh kindLlag 1m»lii«««, twenmd •Titr 
th«ijr r«sp«oUT« bualiuisseii and oftrtaln n«a«ts to th« U,&, 
Wood and Ooko Cony»«a]r, na Illlnoie ^er^^ration. Julius 
Hoeht, in aoeoaplinhlna; tho tmxmt^t of tola Imoinoso, g«T« 
a Mil of oalo to ih* corporation. In that it is recited 
that for $6,000*00 hm «««!««• to tho oorporatlon, "Tho Bunoh 
neod flAanttfaoturlsg plant and bu»ln«s« looatod st 8609 Joneo 
etr«et, oonoi sting of the real oatato, 1»ttildlngo, aaehinery. 
tools and furnitttro looatvd upon eaid prcatises, tagethar 
with four horses and four wagons and all hamesees and oquip* 
went located at SS40 lii verses arftnuw**. The dofend&nt says 
that th« plaintiff ceasad working for the oorporation in 
lUuroh, 1914 s that h« di>9eharg«d hia, and that Julius H«eht« 
the father > stoppad April or the first of ikmy, 1914. H« 
further tastifiad that when the oorporation purchased the 
business fron th« father that the iiorses and harnesses were 
kept at 2940 iJiv«rsey avenue; thtat he adssed the harness 
after the plaintiff, in ^lArch, 1914, quit; that he was teld 
iQr one Bollin that he, Bellin, saw the hiirnese *en Heoht*e 
horses"; that one Sgger said the sane thing; that that was 
in 1915, al»out two weeks befor<i« le ewere out thf^wrrant; that 
the hamee wltlah was broui<;ht into oourt was taken froai thit 
plaintiff's horsee and belonged to the oorporation. 

As to the saw filer, aoter, desk and chair, plain* 
tiff's father, Julius Heoht, testified that in the winter ef 
1913*1914, In the presenoe ef hie sen, the plaintiff, he teld 
the defendant that the boys in the neighbertaaed ef hie fenasr 
faetery (SdOl Jones street) whioh he haa turned erer to the 
corporation, were stealing the machinery, suoh as knolis, hand* 


l«i, mni fttXllag It mi Junk; thut the d«f«i4«at Mik«4 if it 
eould be r«8M»T»4 to J^iu« B«aht*s liasmcnt •r iMUm for oafo 
koopincs ^^^ ^» J^ttXiuo Itetot, thou iudco4 the plaintiff if 
*vo* hftd roo« for it widi lao «»id *Xf «• hoT«*nt room wo vill 
aoko jrooM for it*; that ho, jruiius Heoht, tho fathor. tlioat 
hod the o«o filor. th«? aciotor, doak trnd ehoir rmaoyrmd to the 
iMUiOmont; that he aftonmrds told tho dofeadimt lusid tho lot tor 
•aid it TOt all right* 

fho tostlMay of tho plaintiff •• to that ooaTOXw 
oatioa and th* r«moTal of tho property mentioned is in entire 
aooord witli hio f«th«r*o. Ao to the harnoas:* anu it in not 
fflLainod there vao prohahle cmuoo to belieYe tho plaintiff had 
oiolon anything but that • tho father toetiliod tlrnt, at the 
ti»o ho ooat. into tho eo ripe ration* he had eano hamoos ohioh 
did not holoag to it| that iw bought it in 1911 j that ho did 
not ooll it to tho oerporatien. The plaintiff tcMBtifiod that 
the hamooH in quootion woe bought by tho Hooht'e ycare a«^» 
in 1909 or 1910, that it wae .. family affair; that it oao not 
•old to tho oorpo ration. One Kubots, ft haraose namifaetaror 
of thirty*fiTO years oxporionoo, tec^tifiod that ho had made 
haadrodo of hamoaooe of tho type of tho one in quostioa; 
that in Dooombor, 191&» ho oold a oot to Julias Mooht for 
^0*00; that ho paid tlO«OC when ho got it, and would pay 
ton or fifteen dollars orory year; that ho paid tho balaaoe 
in 191S. 

y»ur vitaooaoe, %^8»T9 oho worked for tho corpora* 
tioB in 1913, 1914 and 1916, Siaoa.who worked there a« oaehior 
and bookkoo»or in 1913 and 1914, ^4 a aophmr of the dofoad* 
•nt, Bollia, wl» worked there ao a toaaetor, and oho Uoits, 
all toatifiod that tho liamooe in quoetioa b*»loaged to tho 

eorperation. Vfgtir tm^tt h* •«» Hax 8«At nad tlui plaintiff 
11^ th th« harnasa on thmir Imrmmn and a«k»A thtn if %hmy v«r* 
iwt ai'rald to .'ut it en. Simon sagrK the >iiirn«s8 Is ih« tmam 
»• ti}« one h* unr on a t«at& of th« oorpormtlon; that h« sav 
the har««s« tTOX^ 4«jr| thai hc> alesed it about th« tin* th« 
plaintiff loft and <U.4 not a«e it again till in th« oourt 
roon; that he knovo it ie the id«ntioal hajrnoat. Bel X in* tho 
toanttor, oajfa he aav tho plaintiff drive with it on his o«n 
toan tvo 07 throe wooko after ho li^t tho oorpomtion; that 
ho reported it to the dofondant; that ho told thm dofondant 
that th«y aisood tho haraooo; that he is positiro that the 
hameos in quopilon is tho one tho plaintiff had in his poao* 
ooeion. Motto, a laxqfor and attonuqr for tho dofondant, too* 
tified that tho defendant oonoulted with hia and ho adTiood 
hrifusitui in the witneoBoo; that he brought in KM^^t R«&ts 
and Sahnidt and ho tnlked nlth th«is that he thon ndTioed 
him to take out a aooond einrmnt; and that nndor the oix^ 
euotetanooa hif would ho Justified in taking <j>tti a vnrrant. A 
oe^^aint, for a oomroh warrant for a sot of douhlo hamnnn 
onnooalod at 2d4C Mveroo/ sTemio, «ith tho ondorooneat of 
PrindOTillo, Judiso, that ho had examined it and imo aatia- 
flod that a anareh warrant should iosuo, was offered wad ad^ 
Bdttod in oridenGo. Alao the aoaroh warrant itnolf , shoving 
ita oxootttion as ts one touhle not of hai^eae, valued at 
#ftO«@0« The plaintiff offered in ovi donee tho oon^lAint 
aado hgr the defendant which eharged tho plaintiff with atoal* 
ing a aet of double hamoos valued at #&0«00, and also, tho 
warrant for tho arrest of the plaintiff. At the oleso of the 
ovideneo aix inatruatiorui were giv'oa on behalf of the plain* 
tiff; six on bohnlf of the defendant; and six others offered 
>3r tho defendant were refused, tho Juz7 fo'juad the issues for 

th« plaintiff 9jn*i «»»»SK«ii hXa 4mamg»B at #tSOO«00, JTu^lc* 
B«nt wuu ent«r«d tto«r«oii, and thia ai,v)p«e]. then taken* 

The dutetitjr and quality of wr^tt Ittftali/ n«Ma«aiy 
t« astablish thf d9f«n99 of pr«1»at>I« oau»« is a suit far 
attlloieus praaveution it e«n«r8ll/ far l«as thMH, »^nd diffax^ 
ant froA that ra^uirwd to prova guilt in a ariiiiitftl praseaui* 
tian far tl»» «riaa aharg«4* A«4er«Q]^ t« Friand . 36 Ill« lU. 

In tba instojit aaaa, th« avidaaoa, intraduead ^ 
th« defonelaat* an th« vubjaat af probable oaasa eaaus to ba 
OTerwhelndag and to atttvalntli all roaaonablo iaf«rano«8 to Imi 
nado from tba toatiaamf and aridanoa en baiimlf of th« plain* 
tiff, Bcgor* SiinoYi » dellia and Baits, oartaitiljr mi»t be £iT«a 
oeaia oradit, oapooiall/ a« tba plaintiff and his fathar oar* 
ro bora tod olightlj by Kubats* ara all wba t«eUfi«d for tha 
plaintiff} for« aran if tha plaintiff «md Me fatliar ^>ieT9 
tailing tha trtttli, and t)i« fathar had bought tha hamaoo in 
1910 or 1911,nyjq QOi\ |g t<»|. that tha dafondant, undor all the 
oirouflutaneoo ahawn, wao not Juotifiod in bolioving that tlt«ra 
vao pri>babla eaaoa far obtaining the ulaiatiff** arrest. 

£f tha iury baliored tho plain tiff and his fathar, 
that tho haraass in quaotioa was bought by thmn or oao of 
th«M in 1909, 19X0 or 1911, ana noTor was sold ta ar b«loaga4 
to the oorporation, still, in Tiaw of th* tostiaaay of Iggar, 
Simon, Bollia, aoits and tha dafntdant, it is diffioult, la 
deed, to resist th© oondLusion that probable cause was shosa 
bar an obaioua prapoad'^ranoa of tha oYldonoa on that subjeot, 

Aa ta aetlag upoa tha adrlee of oouasel; it is true, 
if the iwcy belierad that the harness nmvr beloaged to tha 
oorporation, and further, that tha defendant kaaw it did aat. 

Vttt fall«4 t« dlflel»B« the whol« aat«ri«l truth to hit eoua- 
s«l, thf?a that d«fcn«e fulled. Bat «• 4» net b«c« our do- 
oisloa oa that ground, wo airo of thft opinion that tho OTidonoo 
OTorwholBilncljr shows proheibl*^ oauftt; and that the Tordlot 
of tho iuxj Vftc Manifestly ai^slnot the weight of the evldenoe* 

The Jttdgmont, therefore, will ho roTereed with m 
finding of fact. 


JlUmiSQ CF 7ACT: Ve find as a faet that the defendant Leopold 
Oeterroieher. did not eaueo the arrest of the plaintiff* Henry 
lioeht witixout prohablo oause. 

The dofenuant in this aase is 
shown by the OTidenee to )%HTe siotod on the adrioe of oeunsel 
after what appears to lunre been a dir> closure to hia of the en* 
tiro situation and after his oounROl had eenf erred with soTeraJk 
ef the ones who had informed the defendant of th<^ faets upon 
whioh ho asked his eou»sel*s adfio*. It seeas to ae that the 
df^elslon ef this oase nrui&t turn en the question ef prohahle 
eauBo. In ay opinion, the plaintiff failed to show that the 
defenaaat aeted without probable eause. It nay be said that 
he Bade out a artsw facie eaee on that question by hia 
ease in ehief » when he a«d his father testified that the 
harness (which is the real artiole in oentroTorsy) had nmrtir 
been the property of the eez^oratlon but had been pttrehas<?d 

• •fitf 

liy th9: ffttiotr and hnd always rtmtkined hin property. But that 
pr ^ jjai^ faoJL e. oa»e was wboXly met luid OTeroome by th« tsetinoiiy 
introduced Igr the def«nd:^t to the effect that the bill of 
Bal«, from the Heohta to thra oorpo ration, iaoluand *all h«r» 
noftses and a^viifaiant lo«at«4 at 234C BlTers«y aT«nua«* whloh 
th« bara whloh had been tta«d bgr the Heohta in the conduct of 
their buciin«t«H up to tlmt tlae; that this pertioular haraoot 
MUB« to the corporation under thut bill of sale axx^ was used 
\Kf the corporation oontinuoaaljr thf're&fter in tho cGnduet of 
Ite baoinea« until about the tine the t^ohta discontinued t^ieir 
oennection with the corporation, vhmi it dinappoared; that 
later certain oi^loyaee of th« corporation mtm the hamoao 
being used by the plaintiff on a team be wao usini; in con* 
neat ion with tho bueinese he had reouwtd when he oerered his 
relation* with the corporation end that they told the defend* 
ant about it, oao of then oayinc he had oeofn the plaintiff and 
his brother usin^ this harness on tli^ir t«an and had asked 
them if they were not afraid to put that hamoss on the horses, 
and that they said, *]to, we have to put it on.** 

Beyond the bare df>nial of that eonrersation by th* 
plaintiff, his case i» rebuttal failad to moot this issa« en- 
tire ly. He did not show, nor attoapt to show, that his hamoss 
was nst ^located at 2340 DiTersey aTonuo", at the time of the 
bill of sals, «md therefore not included in it. In the ah* 
•once of soTse erideneo is the contrary, there is strong infer- 
eno* in the record that it was there, for that was the bam 
which was then being used by the plaintiff and hie father 
and brother in oonnsotioa with their business at which th^ 
kept thsir horses, Tehides and other eiailar oguipa^nt. 
After this bill of sale was executed an<i the business of the 



-8- , 


HKtliis ««• c n«oll(iat«d with tiuit of th« defendant, and ih« 
laeiita v^re employed in «oxm«etion with that Imsiavas, yr«* 
•unaliljr thny vntir*!/ dieeontinuAd their bualneea and would 
h»T« BO Ofioaaion for th«^ uaa of auoh a taaa hamaaa as thia, 
Ther^ia no aTidunoe showing th«^ did uaa this hajrnaaa ar liad 
anjr ua* for it tlMaa«lT«»B, after tha corpe ration waa foraad. 
And further* tii«ri» ia no teatiiaony^ whatevctr ahowing or tand^ 
ing to shew that the defandaAt had m«y rea«sn to haliawo or 
•uapaet that thia hamaaa waa ia the possaaaion of the plaia* 
tiff and his brother aftar tht^y l#ft thn buaintas of tha 99r»* 
poratioa, under any olaia of ownarship on the^ir part* aaida 
fro» the ja«re faet (to whioh thrre ia aonc r^farenoa in tha 
r^oeord) that the Haohta atill ewaad stook in th« aarporation» 
which would hardly aacn to inwolTa an/ question of tha ownar^ 
ship of thie hamaaa, 

Xt therafore saffioais to ma that the dafand&nt^a 
(trnw taadad atraagly to ahaw that ha did hara prahahla oauaa 
aad that it OTeraama plaintiff's prima facie oaaa to tha ee»* 
trazy and further that plaintiff* c oaaa in raltnittal wholly 
failed to maat that is sua, frost whieh 1 hafa haan oaan^lled 
to aonaluda that the rardiat anu judgr^ant for tha plaintiff 
ara against th<» stnnifaat waight of tha aTidenact, 

!j? *0? 

87 • &&33a 

nenM or ths stati of luoMtfis^ 

mtwitumX in "Rrr^r^ 



i^ai^Uff in -i^r. | g 1 9 X *^* ^ 

MR. FR'SSIMilO Jtfi^tiaK tAlCLOH deliT*r«« th« opinion 
of %JM oeuri* 

Qa Itogr 19 » 191,9, oa« Xiira««ahi fil«<s <ut infenMiUon 
in th« HMttieijMtl Oeurt ftllwgins* infr nlin . thftt Lor«an» 
twn4nw0 , til* iplajLnU ff in orrer, on ttnir 18, 1919 « vno 
•n idlo fltnd dioooliato pcroon* tanMiunlly soglootfttl of his 
•c^lOjrauint ttnd eaillinc, aid noi lawfully j>roTi#t for liiaoolf, 
iM|plo<ri«4 all lawful imoinaao, Imbitualljr misopont hie tiaio 
without lairing a good aooount of Maaolf, is known to haTO M» 
logal Boans of ou^port* and io haMtually fount! prowling in« 
and loitorittg around otoroo in rielation of sootien 27&, clliaptor 
M, •f tho aonriood 3tatuto« of tho stato, and againat tiio 

|MNft90« OtO* 

TIM plaintiff in orror» twraiaaftor «all«d tMr dofondk 
ant, filod hio rooogninwion, a plan of not gniltjr, ^d a Jitzar 
vaiTor, A trial waa had, at whioh tho oYidonew oonoiotod of 
iho toaiiaoHQr of four witnooooa} throo poliomMm tootifiod 
•n baiaaf of %h» paoiklo; and that doftmdant, on bohalf of M»> 


Bomaeolii, a polio««a«, ti»fftifi*d that ho had known 
llM «nfa«4ant for a*r« than four yoara; tt»t h» bad ooon hia 

'^5*^* '^■^f 


oontiaually on th« Btr««t for the {>*«% •ight MmnKTam, mon^m, 
ilH«« t«e or thr«« tiatt* ti vmIC} th»t h« im4 n^^wr knowit 
hiM t« w*rk for sn^r IcitcUi of tiac; that h« «»• aooatsmtly 
valklng I'm »tjr»«t» with oatt Bftlor«.«t«, «itt»But 4oiag any* 
thing; that t^^ry iivm h« aaked hia «r}^ h« did not go t« 
work ho «aw«yo o*l«i ho who wexiclasS that he tO^woye onv hia 
i« A ooiooa plagrinc oajtAo or pool* oir on ih« otroot «1»out m^ 
iiae tMitwNion el«Ton k»M* »^a4 fivo or six F,isi«; that the tlo* 
fondant aoTor told hia whoro he workod^^ 

Tlio vitaooo Doirito, a poIieoMui. to«tlfl«di that ho 
know tho d«fos4^xat ahout ft to jroairo; that ho ha« no huoinooo; 
th«t ho, tho witaooe* iv of that opinion ^oamuoo ho mot hi« 
OB aa avorago af fif t«i»n or twenty timoo r eaonth; that h« told 
him ho would Io«k hia tqi if he did not ffo to work; that ho aokod 
hia why ho Aid not go to «ork »nd ai^ftort his family, hat got 
no aaowor; that oaoo ho aaid ho did w«i4e for th« Saoyor Bio* 
oiiit OoayNnny; * that Sorg«ant Carter arreetod him ahout a yoar 
ago for a "otifik up*, mmi ho vao hold to tho grand Jtury, hut 
iho WNnplaininif vita«aa oojld not be found ona oo « ^nowhili** 
wao voted* 

FauX Riooio, a jioli o o aaa , tontifiod that ha know 
tho d« fondant ahout fiYO yoaro and had aooa hXm ahout throo 
or four tiaoo a waolc aad on oaoh aooaaioa intonragatod hia; 
that ho oaid ho worked in a saloon on Barrioon otrooi, hat 
that that waa lookod 119 an 4 fouad not to h« truo; that a yoair 
•ad a Imlf ag» ho waa arroatod, and had a guoit ^^^ ***• fih<t^ 
#te,00 and ooata; that during th* four yeas*o ho (tho witn««s} 
hao known the dofondani, tho latti»r hao had ao ooooiyatioa; 
that ho vaaro good olothos. 

The a«f«nattAt t*»tlfl«d ito»t h» !• «t pre«<tnt •»• 
9l«y«4 a» ast5i0t«Bt «»r44m ^ th^ Vor«»t Pr«s«rve QonmlBoioa* 
«r» cf Ooek OouiiV eoid h»« b«en siaM i.i«y 24, 191.9$ tUmX hiu 
vorlt» as fay laii h« knomi, if to ooiiUnu« duria« Xim 9mm9t» 
thm d«f«mdnnt j»re4ua»4 a l«tter imxi»oirti«hK t€ W tiA^cd lay^ 
oa« "Jftlm F. MoOaffrajr* Mairiot yojr«»t«r*, Aat^di Jua« 2, 
19If • viiioh ift aa fallovss *Tb« lyaarar, I«ar«ttso aon«nwlana» 
im» iMwa «^i>la]r«4l by the Oooli O*. JTereKt Bremttrf ainoe May 
84 • 19X9 • and vill b(? kapt at vork all sitanar, JPurln« thia 
tiaM ha bat |>arfomad hi* datl«!» in a oapalile and ladaairioua 
aMMmar.* Tka aafaadant t«»tifi«d that \ffor9 ha want to wo tie 
for tha Faraat fr9»9rrm Mstriet h» v&rkPeA for aaToral yeara 
Ml a poriar an<iS g«iiaral ttiilltjr omoi in th« ealooa of liooa 
Albarti at 859 neat Ibkrrioon otraat, ^?hi <iaK». 

At th« eilooa of tha «Yidenco» th^ tri«tl Jadga found 
agaiaot the dafoadant* aatarad Jttd^aant aocordiagly. aaa oasi* 
tanoed hlxa to the '^uaa of ^rraotloa for alaatjr dajra* Tho 
dofoaaaat prosaottted a writ of error. It aao made a eupersedeas 
oad a hoad of $A,oeo«0@ wae givaa* 

The defeni^aat olaitto that the oTidsnoa dore not 
a«9|Mr% the eoATietioa, The polioaaton* all three » otatedi 
that the^ had known him over four yftaro and had oeen him 
oftaa; JBomao<^ oayo* two or thre^^ tia«e a ««ok for the 
laat eiieht aoatha; JQvrito eaara, fifteen or tvontjr Uaiea a 
■oath, and Rieoio aajra, throe or four tinea a voiA; and aa 
to his vorkinc and hia haliita, the testiMongr of all throe 
ie that he hahltually sdLaopent hie tiaa, waa idle and ooa* 
dttotad himself in Tiolatioa of the atatuto. The t)Tidenoo 
to the omitrmrjr is merely the etat«acnt h^ the defendant 


iiskAi finoe the infonaation vara fil*4, h« imtt b»«n wtTklag 
fer ih* Kor«st Pr«»«rT« ';oRmi»«ian«r8f tma that b«for« )» 
v«at to vork for them, h@ vovlcod eoYoria years at & p rtor 
UEid «ottoral «tlllty man in tho saloon of Eoaa Albortl. 3io 
•Tid^ioo ia net porauaaiTO. it do«« not oo«m stroag anaugk 
to auUeo tho teotiaMajr of the tiiroe poIio«»«n deubtfuJl* Of 
•ourao, th0 trial Jud^a had tham all, £>oli««aoa and dofoad* 
aat. b«foro him, tm^ waa in a mioli bettor peeltion to paoo 
upen th«lr orodlbllity than «o aro« Soa»l(}«ri»« i^At tho 
r'^oerd ohowo, v« do not faol Justifiad in overturning the 
judgment that wao «Jnt«r«4, fooole r» C»Kei<^f« . 17« III, Apj?. 
••• i^^oglt ▼• atgr . Clon. So, 24592. 

The dofenoit^it filaiioo further, that hi* wao &rr«ct«d 
without warrant* The r^ierd shove that on ssay 19 « 1919, learo 
was giToa to file an information; that, on the same data, it 
vas filed} that the defendant entered into s^ reoogniannoo for 
hiB appearaaoo, anci then, after certain wntinuanoeo, went t« 
trial. In that etate of thi' r«eora no question can arise as 
to the iaauanoc of a warrant. 

Vindinc MO error in the record, the jud«»ent is 

©•OOHSOK, J, ABi) THCMKCar, 1. 0C1I<»R» 

X30 • wwrn 



19I.A. 639 

«nr»r tmmwf>* oilaiMMMl u» lMiveiMi«a ffuwtaJjHMl lor rtHi»o» of 
6«f«i»dMtti*» rvjTuaBX t« irnKMlir* it qiaoxitlV of b^irrol* to 
tM laRuwufaaturvd «ati (l«liv«r«id 1^ pJUintiff to do/^naant* 
At tlM aIee«'of Um ^«iiitiff*a c!«i»« UM«r« %>»» «» iii^ 
«trttOt«4 ymmtot Xn ttkV^r of pl«4nilff for tJio tuaoi^t 
of lift al%l«« $41Lfl0eiii«flt» to rovoreo wtttato 4«f«iiia«»t pvo* 
•oeutoo thio «i|i|^o«X. 

flao rooom 4i«<iioo«o ttet plaintiff witD ofn««o 
in Qiiitnteo oi^x«t«ii « s^lojut for tim a«oiitif«o%«ur« of Wrrolo 
ftt Eoolrakft X*«i tlMt 4of«iMl«iit «»• «ti««iso6 in th* MMom* 
ftt«tt«r« of dOMfcttHTONl mXmiml ot i'oori** Ulijioi«« twod 
iiooAotf bft^rolo f)ox it« pre^uet; tinKt «n Votofiaiury aci» ieot» 
93ittiatlff wroto ^ofon^foit » Xott^r offoriag to aHu»«fo<}tur« 
MUi ooll iHunrolo to 4of»nd«ot. 7Jfci«^ tonko of thi ti l<»tt«r 
••yo *o«ipt«4 1^4 oonoUtttte tli« oontraat Imtvoim tiJO 
9«rti«»« Xt i» fto follows i 

*JFe«rU, III* V«¥ntM3r aoUi»19e(f« 


«Mt« o«iE oil »t«T«« imA hott46t t» oeot^&in ei^iit r«» 
fillar tNu?r«l 1«k»9«, oad to 1>« «r a m^«lty ^'^ ^<^ ^ 
iSt giaiMMt «;i«« at %h<(f x&tif 9t ItC «lgixt hoop Imlf* 
tM»irol.« and* froa lilc<3 ste^, 9»#aailjr 3C tc ZZ ^Ml^tm* 

Ullaeittt »t $&•»€ for tb« lnurrttlii an^ iUS^ fef> %li» 

Fy«n JiiRo l9t, 31909 i %u ilM» fir»% of J'ojiiM&agrt 
1908* w« a«:T«« to 4«»liv«&r %h^ wum mwlMx- of ^MumAo 
fl»d h6if«»lMrfN»lif 9wr (i<^» «iado fnm iawotXy tite ««■>• 
qiMklilQr 9f «t«d(« ftt #1*79 for Um lMurr«l* oau IU4S 
for tiw i»ilf«lMynNAii» of ijUcv o«)S»494Vt f*o*W mvK jrour 
iUBtuXofy lN«ri«^ Ullaoiftn 

ALl i»*<MMk«oo <ioXiiroiHi4 ^Moriiig tho iMontlui of 
ttwrtfl^ Afuril fuiu Efi^t at v^lX a» all otli^r ^»<lfia4[«o 
. 4allvor#4 ti3^ to %im fir«t or JaxkVMUqr* t9CMt %w to ¥• 
oa1»4«ot te tlio ii«»$»«otiOiO of r« J* X* murplagr ao tio 
<iaaXity* t»im» yf pnywmt to h« mmh uimmi roo^ij^t 
•f tiaa ya^featpMi* 

Tb» «boir« ii>xt>t(,'::lti0a io oitlijoot tc> m»» 
asroiOalftlo a:^(i«mt». to «itiior partjr t><? tM(i n^troo* 

Yours vojr/ %»tiX)r« 

TlMl O0»tir»-0t 1^ Ito toirxMt i»(!^iv«4 JfiMMOlir X» 
1900* tmtiwawita of iMwnroXo woro jmmio fyow tiioo to ti«o 
•«ir««att«it U.999* SO lwaf«lNiinr«lo vmro lOayyoa* 7«« or 
tlir«« oayX«4wlo ««r« aiiiiipod dsuriae Summxf and ]*o^nMii.xy« 
19C19* bitt noso w«r« oiiXsipoii aft^r TBhrvtAfjft X9C9. Xkout 
ymm 4, X9ai 4«foiia»iU«o j»XMit at Foovia oXoooO dOiMU Aftoio* 
munlo, oa Aj^rXX Xb* X909» iiXaintiff l>v«tteltt t^s miXt to 
roooTojr 4aiia«oo oXaXMiag tli^t timttrndtrnt bod rofuood to a*» 
o«»t tte tiaXanoo of t2»o liaryaXo oaXXo4 for l«f ttoo oeatraot* 
Vls8 92Ci«B* mm aXX of tho haXf*lMrx«Xo* S4006, Xt offorod 
«vl«#aoo UiMliafi to lOiov oOiat Xto loeo wao on oaoh bamroX 
«t« teXr»barroX, am ^m vovA&ot vao for ttw aiaouiit Xt oXaXM04« 


Wnr»lft, m^ Xlm% tJ»e reaacn t,»M»t mil »i lb»— \iukrwlB w^rt 
attt sMi^pAd %» <l<»f«ad«itt i^r^^x* to 3mtu»ry X, 1908, mi* th»t 
A#fi»naiMnt fs-oia tiitas to tim* r*(^tL«fti«ti i^t »tUL.|»»tiit« b« 
4«f«rreti for tli#^ roft«Q» itet its <i<ifmtttjr«4 mXim}»l \m»immm 
lUMl a»t d«v«Xe9«d as 4«f«na«int Iia4 «K|»«9t«^, «tn<l that {a«ii»» 
tif r fte«9««i4 to tlilB r^Njueet; tliat in th««« airamtttuB^** 
tlM X«v Is tlunt t^ tM« within wM^ %im htLitwl» w&f to 
Ve dftliTttr«4 «»« oMtiXfittf to a r««*o»at>i» ti«i> b«yi»it(t Jifca* 
u&iy X, ittce* On tfeM •tlt«»r haai4» 4«f«»aant ttute«f» t)M» puai* 
%i»n "t;b»t tMfi ^«N&» (i oontntot t(» 1»« SN»rl^nMi«l ARij^ Att^ ami 
ilittt if« ligr Mttiicl «»iM«iit dMjfc «#v* iaii»«nict to pa»» iritla* 
•«it 4*livttri«ft, na <A.»Xm tn&MlA %« MAd« tl^t th» teiiy ^utAAtitlMHi 
iflJMfllTrlilriH ^^ ^^ <i«fftult wu nakivecli"} tlmt aft«»Mi»<l8 betJi 
yj»rti«« liy timir «our«« of oosMtiAOt tvi»tti#4 %h^ oonlMMot «• 
roQuiiriag ^la>i»iiff te ftAmioJat «ieft&»d£j»t itll tlM» ^mxr^lm 
MMl tM^f*b»jrro2.ft 4«f«tt&M»t rflK}uiro4 ia tint* op»4uot of its 
iMftoijiooi!* Alius Ofdjr fio or4«jfi4 l^r dief«it«KUk»ta fui4 furtlwr tlmt 
th« tint of 4«l.iv«xgf wm not •at>t,An4«4 iMigrMi^ Jwaiuurar 1, 19oa« 

TlMJf oontraot* V itn tonui* r«<|uix^ l^i«latiff to 
•M» ImviroXo to 4«fomlftat bogiimiag tinreh i, on4 «« fiii4 tliot 
%lM foliooinc oM]^»ont« w«r« tt»4o ligr pilftiiitiff nitkiongli tlw 
r«Qor4 4o«o not olnrv tiiMt dofoiMMuit snvo nny tpooifio ordoros 
liwroh 1» nMW» ttncA 8. 864» 1IIUP41I ▼• 84f « Mwrola 9. 20i* Mnrtfli 
ii» •id* no lMtf»<lo w^tm olii9»o4 on tho 4ttjr« intorTOnias ttot 
•lUiaionto «« not »ut» On mm^ IB 4ofon4i&»t «ir«4 piaintiff 
to 4i»oentiBiio oh.^,a«ttt« untii fturthor notioo otftting, *«o 
nyo 9r«t«y «oli otookod up with bnYroXs for tta* pr#ooat aii4 
it wiXX ^ m s^mt tmXp to m if yeu will refrain ttem ssnlciiii 

Mqr mownt tiiXpmotm until furtmr n»Uo»* uliic^i wUJL ]|^x«takldLy 

Wi»ip% 9f thl» Iftttor «asa eet April, 8 «rot« 4«f«it4Mits 

*«• 1P9UX4 }M» i»&<MUMMl to taMni idMn /OU WMli 

/Oii tlMi «at l»«n«l« fr«ei new on ^iriXX \m i«^i«i4 
«t tlw 9rl«« •f H*Y8 lttiit«a4 of $i*80, «• tiM 
wrlt&t 9Jttmi—4 m* tXmtim,*^ ^^iMi ^^« ttttvyliQr tli»% 
if ttw •ittt»%iaii •aM4 off «aar H* weul<i 46 this* 
TJOMor in tuarn a«ir»(i4 to Imi *• l4taii«»t mi 9«»»IUi# 
ttlwut r«quiriiiit %wurriA« fi»r proMpt sMpaumt* w«« 
)«ow«ir«r« Miii«i9ftt«d t^t tlu^ votiXd uM •eaM» 
$m& w rmtXly fi£;«ur»4 ois vmt cr tlKr*^^ ours « waOt 
iMing tt»«4 ligr you* 

If it it iukti«faet»x;)r, «» ureuKi like to oiKly 
ftbout tHift moxyr «v«Ky iPMk vuitil yot» (lo»ir« «ojr« 
•tUpwrats* * 

Cto t%»ril li <i«f«iis4imt r«pli«4 timt it wtrn j?A«ui««i At tikw 
rodttotion in prlM w»4o <ui<i ooatittuott* 

*«• iMd M>»o4 tlM^t Voforo tlkln ^u «oul4 ^t« 
vosujBMMt im^ftt^Mr slu^iMnito of biUfT«l>» ^t alwmmm 
»%ska9»M iuf« oucto tlsftt -m mum% ai0t %btkt ^a Jaolii off 
for ft while xcn^wr m% loiuit. 

V« «v« «n4««irariii8 to woric »ff tlui ourpiuii tiiftt 
«• Iiti4 oo btmii amti iim t^« to )>o oXftv work owing 
to tho iJiotiUoiy vunaAm *>^t ouob o ftwali 9ti»m<Atjf» 
aMnrvor, w« imto «f thm oi»iaioo ilmt vit^tt » T^yy 
•k»rt titto «• will ia«r«M»« tlui om^MMiitgr of tho 
Iilattt* oofUMNiiMntl^ u«o ooro l»fMrr«l»* oaa, of ocuroo. 
vo wiXI oa(s»«ot you to flun»i»Jt tb«ia« 

A% tM« titto vft Uo not thiflfc it «Miiri»«ia.o to 
(■Mnwa«« ftiiiiit^iii; untxX /ou laoor far«n uo ««;fti»«« 

Q» Ibgr 3d, tiio <tof«nda3tto ovotos 

•«• ftro aov in & {tooitioa to tftko a fov oftrIo«4Ui 
of oavty iMurroifi ana «ouXa uok th»t yea rooitno iHip* 
piag 041 follows s 

i oojr Moadigr 

I * tOdlMMMtOQr 

]i * 8Mkttt3f4iijr 
of next «o«k ttn: hoTitif ^no this* do not obiy ugr 
K«or«' tt»tU you iMwr from ue. vo would &!«• ««k tiuit 
you inotruot your factory to bo »oro pfertiailojf »bo«t 
tuo hotui taoopo a» on smB% of tiae terrois r«a«iTO<i it 
Imo 1»««a ftiiMiot i«p«»»^^tt ^ <^^v« ^^*« witittat tfM»» 
o«i«§ tlio tMiirr«i«*i 

will f6rwi&r4 th« tJ^r»« «»]ro of iNurroXii aui In* 

Brjt 16 pladntiff irroto. 

**Xb r«if«r«Mi0ii to telf«)»urrol.s vtlaXs^ «« «gr»4Hl 
to 4eliv«r you 1<.C iH»r Oa/i 

tiioM liKXf«^iunr«I«« w« oliiuLl Itw iH»l«tt««^ to for»«]r4 
ttaiwi* W «ixi autko u^ laik <Mi7 or ti« fnr y^u vls;ht 
mmft A<f ^*6u irioh« 

V0U14 «a»o Xlieo %e kfism wha.t |rou wtsMt in %ls0 
Vfijr of Mfi \»rr«l»* %^« b&y* 9i*«|NahVo4 owroolvoo »e 
•o to toko oeiro of yc^'ur 1moisoo»» «iM wdu'O liko 
to hAYO or4#r8 «t th« rftto of about 406 por tin^* frcw 
now MU* 

to tMo dofoa4«tiit ip«pii»4 iiM/ SO,* 

*«Ould ov tj^t wo «iro not ot thle tlMO r««4jf 
to rooeiwo ^olf^litunrelo »o w« ^vo qui to o stodk 
ott J»ad»4« v« «ro ttloo woll fUi«4 u]^ iiritli i»Krrolo 
wi wo ojpo manliici; on a mmdl aaj^o&ty* 

Vo tldnk it in ^ot at tlila tiae mt tc- li«ui» 
oiiis^ping tto rotftOArijrt ^t will advioo ^ou Imtmf 
vkm to rowmo* osd in t^tio wojr wo ooa icoop our 
otoroteuoo tnm \mmmim oo»goot«4« 

¥ou will h&»3t twm no in tlio noor Iteturo in 
rojiprd to oM{»fiMmto»* 

JRuwo • plaiatiff wroto* 

•IN thanli ^QM for trtio roi^tt^iioe »iiii wo voaltf 
1m {»io*ooa to IMTO jroa aiJ^rloo as whoa «o mijf makn 

twttimr oiiipwmto** 

On Jyao 19 yl»iatiff a^aiii wrote Soloon Koyor wl» ooesio* to 
lN> an offi<3«r of dofotmant mm»mx>9f ao folio wo s 

"Wo wo '.14 IM plOfUMMt to tevo 4 u Mqprooti 
your v;lo»o »o to n^at tb« pro^ooto aro in tiM 
voty of ttoini; borrolo at i?ooria« 

Vo bairo j^ureiiaoo^ wsiA aoioMttl«to4 a largpo 
^ttOAtitar «i^ Uiim otoQk, oottto«i$»latlB« aakimn 
tbooo borrolo. ^r that roaooft* wo aro qui to 
a litUo diaap^elatod aot to tiawo thm orOoroA 



Zf mvmin%9mt» tk« writ«r wimxa like to ]tutv« 

to thill Wttjf^T r«|Ai«4 oa Jua^ «L that tm t»im m ht tntmuM4 
%b» iMi«««i9»i7 d»%« IM W04 (£ inrit« wbitt the pro»]^dot« v«jr«, 
«dMi on JuJLjr % HkQf^w iMSair^ wrot«« 

*lt —mm timt tlitt 4«aeitiir«(l «l.a0lioX lA>»iii*»«i 
i»9 m% 4mf9l»»9€ mt rmii^i^ $m It «l)0ttl4* mA iM 

O0B*«ttt«a«»« tlMf^ hftV« 1i»««n uoftbla t0 tt«tt Ml auiigr 

iManmlt froM y«u »« ««« imp-^a fi»T« Xa ^rdttr t» 
1m» v«y3r fail* with ^ou in iiuis ttftttfir* «« iat«tMl 
to «»• alil tho bfiur««l» jr^ur oofttifwct ttftJli«4 for* 
Wt najK ^ •onp«!X3.«Kl to aftk for %im &i<a« aeaivery 
to ^ ojiSMMlflHl. Z »<»tiB "bgir thitt tk^t oujr oo»tr««t 
«0ul4 »ot tmt^iro «b Janu&xy lot* ifOS* Imt t^oulti b« 
ooatAOMMt into 190^* 

JD» you iMlc« onjr vpivit l»aw«l«f if •§• it Mislit 
1SN» 90««i1Ao tli«it v« ooulu t&Tnwm* to die^oi* Qf 9omm 
•f t^«« for 3f<»u, to •ijttaliMr ia » awtMWurt our f«aiaf« 
to taiKo a,i» m«tx^ off tlao &11 otook l»«ry<ftiii <&• •jt|>«ot«fd*'* 

to tnio i*tt«r p3,Aitttiff ropXl^ Juljr ft* 

nNi will ts7 Alia {to tli« rie^t tiling liijr j^ou '^*hmn 
Vtui tint* «bt»*m Tat yc-u to or4«y 8«b«% no re Wrrttlfi* 
V* aur« )|iTiiig al«ut alX tlio %iiuiiJiio«t wo o«ui iMndio 
rigM now on eMOciag fA Oak biury«i«« (to tSmt it i» 
iJMn»t«ri«i %is> u« 4«»t new iirlt«tJEWJr >au tiUco tJtto tettrroXo 
or ££Ot« -I'^A »i tuition x i^ omiifiw* iMwovinr* in & 
•hoiri Uaw*" 

0» July 9 4ofo»atttit wiroto^ 

*Siiulljr oMN^ u» At y&ux- «urii««t octsvoaionoo 
on« (i) «Murloa4 of ^Murroio** 

Gfi July 6 ^iAlatiff ropiiod to titis Xott«r» 

*1* wax mkxl ordOJT for ohi^nwnt Af nmthfsr 
mr 9t Vftrr«l« to you to our Kookuk iiXattt to^ay. 
•114 iero Will li^ot mm» »l4.i»iHi(k 4a«t •« ooon as wo 
jioooiltXy oo>ii« 

•Vo turn grotty woXX X««4«« «» «it»i ordoni 
a»w o« tl»« pacaK^ag ^u»o trada aB4 it cugr bo a 
tmt 4aya l»«for« wo mn £;ot it off** 

i»ofon4aat y«s^Xi«4 to thX» o» JuXy S» 


*«« ttr« in oo pmrtimiXiUp imunr^ fof th« »laip» 
oMfii ftf tnurr«ls im4 il" it ie» nn m«mmm4at%lttm t9 
ir»tt «• «r« wiXline %e wmit m r«ft»o«ftbl« Usm* 

V« hti;^ir« b««» aloiv In »*ii4iiiig jreu oiu* «r4*x>e 

t« uft« « oeuAoiul or iti« 9i»r\Xjr »* our »t#«k tf 
6X4 lM&rr«X» wliiojri Jaaft hinm om* nMftiA •euro* of 

vu«)pljr in l»«««»l.iii mmntMI •asiai** 

On July iO i>3.fti«itiff wort** 

*ir« «iXi r«nmi:^ /o;4 «ll tkd paolMMi** jTrniMiillly 
tj»at /ou KMiy muit* «a4 «»ieii to %iimk /«u I'fr tMi« 

*l1L«iiUMi mci%nw our ora-^r for ]^r««s9t •M|k»(»iit 
on« (X) mrXoaA of h»rtmlm, oeoo oo Xiuit* ¥011 
Wft,^ ttXoo ftttior Our ortior for ono U) ony-Xeod 
Of %im *Mmm mmpmrtm^n •Mpm'mt to bo smOo on 

I^X»Xa«Xfi r«i?XX«<l to tiiio lot tor two «M>jro iat«r« 

•»• %wvo fojroiMPflo* ^<s^ir ©ru«8r fcr tne- too 
Mum of Mptty lNurr«fXs to t'no I'&ctory* ono okr 
to Ivo o]«^|MMi 99im»%3^ tmA on« our iluX^ 22ii4» anit 
taptiot jTOtt «UJL fiiul ooMO «iiUroX|^ ofttiof^otory*** 

iNX;t ^>^^ <lofoai&M»t wroto* 

*C4»4X/ uhkp uo ot 01190 too {») oorXooao of 


Ao «r« il.iiivo Mm»»x^ aotikist^ rotiarAJLsg; %h» tiio 
OMm Mttoy*! t>i£ Xftli wo wo^xd kiti4Xy ook to mw* 

tvoood 00 00 to xaottTO »ro&tft 4oliirox|r«* 

To tl»to 9X«X«tifr roi>Xi«4 on ttio S3rd« 

*sr« imv% to<b«y forwarO»4 iaotruotieno io U»o 
fAOtoi^^ to oiiip jrou too Moro oarloodo of borroXo 
00 proa^tXy oo |»osoil>Xo* • * » Oao oor wont for* 

vor* to /ou to4ojr»* 

Atftfiiot san4 (iof«o(i«unit wrote. 

*noooo olii9 ot oaoo* ao «o oro in o Mff 
iMTty* too <8) oovHoaAo of liorroXo. if jrou oonaot 
0^9 i»ot^« at oAoo. ohi9 oao eoJT ouro** 

24* 4«f«si4«st «r«t« oenflraiog t^ er4«r «f %im ftStna Aua aikid, 

*V« «ir« MTis^ntljr in a»»4 vf U»«»« l»iiri^X» 

¥«»u amy «»i«r ttur ftr«l«jr for 9rc»«pi 9ti3iip»mn% <• 

iwo (a) iftaaiUi'>«mX oto'ft « i« )»« «kL9]»«ci Mea^jiyy 

Oct AMfttot 99 ftUniJtiifl' wroiv (Mlc]M«l»«M|iiiNK r«o«if t ef tfil««^f«ii 

•aa l»tt«r «f tlift S4th oi&i c:«aiiiHniiBe« 

*W« wi«lt ^ «t«*t« UMit WW wovlii iftpprcoiftio 
it if yt&u vouia pi»a« ^-our •r4«]r« four or riTo 
i«jro la mdfoiioo for your rotiuir«^«i)t»* a* it 
giYoo • iMittor oJaaJioo to got tint^ out* 

Vo jaoTo «Atoro4 /our or<l»r for an tt<dditio«MRi 
four Ottm for o£iJ(>i^a«»t tUlo W4N^* 

XiiidijF tt4Titto no oluRt jTOtt mtttt aoxt oooic «9 
tiMt vo .ouir >)4l »WLo to forward Uioa viwni jrou oost 


te tho acKi tfnir 4«fMMkMat r«i^i«4* 

*Vo acroo ^ith you titot imi» ohouJLA Imvo ttitron 
you noro aotioo, lnut t&« foot tkiAt t^ ordoring 
•f Wrrolt^ «ot» OtOi{i.ooto<i io t}%« r«r«o«n for our 
urir*at ro«ivboot to nnip ot i^iioo* 

Vo tiiMOk jTOu fo.: %im <30urt««3r in tm &mitor 
OHO oiaoU OBa«»vor to ^^iv* .r^ «"»>'« U«* ^» ^^ 

H&fA mi^ oator our orUor for ithiptatnt for ft 
oftrio«4s of iHurvoio to ocwo inrvmrd ot yo«ur oori* 
loot ooav«iiioi»e««* 

To taiB lottor i>l4i4atlff r«pXlo4 t^ noxt aojr« 


*«« liriTO ontoroo t^o or«4«r for too mrm oajro 
•f iMUPiPOlo, «ma vlli tvy to koop ttuNM oonlotf oloag 
i« or4«r to t«ko ooro of jrour rttduirottonto.** 

fto9toal>«r 4 4«foa4»iit goiro ««ot>)or ordor for too ouro to ^ 
olai9p«4 ftt 9l»itkUtf*» oojrlioot ooavoalonoo* 
Soytottter ft liXftlntlff «roto« 

•ifciM will l»m »hi:»sm^ |irc«#tl4r«* 

Oftin out foe us tAttmwrttVf kXw&^ ti«9 tlmi 
«as%)« aoMMMi jTonnMnl mi iieiMifigr* iHtti i» M4<i4«» 
tioa te th»»« t«9 ti«u«« Iftfid 8 (Mum ft A»» 

or «« aft«r emkXmg four etBXii for th« wmIc** 

iRM mtkmamlm4si»A Una 4ftjr fdlleviag laiy ^attintiff wim •«i.d, 

*V« .%Hiy« for««tr4»dl ^'«>.iyur or4«jr for t«re (Miarlo«kid» 
l« r.»ois«ilt» for pTOiapt «tt«'»ti&i;i**' 

4«r«4 fommi^ FX-fiWiptliir* c;» tiuD aftxt 4(gr plaintiff wrote ik9m 

^'l* iwir» «tttr»r«4 %it» »>^fft for ti»« four msu 
9t iNurrolo Aii4 also for t]«r«o ears ]»«r wo«k» for 

Ctti SovvmlMur & aofowiNAi wrote^ 

*9I.«M« dia9«niJl»u« oMymnito of barrolo to 
UK until furtiior odvisFoa.* 

On xu« aoxt ciMjr ^lAitiiiff ropiloA* 

*A« you «uc««ot« wo wlix mtlT^ rooicok lay 
mOl toda/ not to ksmOco tuiy furtJaor otiij^sioais to 
you* In the nooiittimO th«y «a^ iaavo a Our or two 
oia tho wa^» for wtaoli you bavo not re9«>lirod ¥iXla» 
^t wo will Hoad It off a» ooon a« poo»iUo« * * » 
JUot ao fit ciA ao you «ant atorf barralo U> mMt for» 
iMMr4« ploaao let uo knew aac wo wUX oorro yoe^ to 
tlio boot or our acuity.* 

*Vi»uX4 klndXy mak th»% you eoatiiiu» »kltHa*i»t» 
m% thn xmt0 of out! imrleaA i»«r «e«k until furthipr 
«dy&»«i&» owing to a atrlks &t ti'ii* pl«at» a« v«Xl 
Ml ftt othvre. «« h&T« b^oeiMi •v«SNito<dc«4l« aiui in* 

twiV* »uXfioi«ii| lNiiT«l» to i»st ttiitiX ftono Utt« to 

On %h9 ii«xt dajT pl»iiitifir vrot* tiiat ths^ h«d inBtruotftd ih« 
pXwat to oeAtiiMv nhl^^kn^ at tl»ir i«t« Of 0A« ai»)rloti4 p^r w««ik 
uatu furtHttr or<l«r»» 
aoveBii»«r 20 j»X«inUf f wr«t«« 

**• luivdt |[»««a ocuriryias <|ulto a ctodc of half* 
liairr«l tt»t«rial at our plaat for ^ou« wad if /ou 
Mr« ufltiMg ^M^jT of thoao imltmlB^X'rBXu wo wouia lUc« 
to put in » 0R7 or tuo*" 

Om 8oT4«1>«r is? dof«na«ust ii4t^i»»wX*4ao4 r«oolpt of this ottor 
•aa o«i<l« 

*BiiKrot to «ft4vi»« you tlukt wt etill )}av« & 
•HffidLcst ^uantltjr of hAlf*lMirvola on l^ftod etttd^ 
tJ^r<'fOA-«« lufo uxkoblo to i;F«i]it jrour jroqiioot to 
alloifr you to aako o^^wmt of « oor or tivo. 

A« ooon fto pvMol^c «« vlll «Ghrl«o yovi furtiior 
in this (Uro otioa. 

You will kia<ay <iioocatii»tt« ohif»(i«ot« of 
iNUrrolo Ml our wareloouoo io full imd orders «ro 
«Miia«i in voss' olovly*" 

Tia» lott«r wfto ropiiod to Iqr j^Xoiiitiff mrmOMut 29« 

*W« oiaooroly truot you will f«Tor u» witk 
«M oro«r for ocwui holf terrolo J»ot ao oooa oo 
jrou po«»ii>iy otttt* as wo Jwtva boon ^mrariat <}uito 
a lot of thi» tttOflk (oaout^h to m»k» fivo tlwuttaadi 
httlf baxrolo) th^ro la Kookak ovor oinoe tho erdojr 
wao iiiv«r>* 

Aloo givo as iaotruotioao for Khi^mrat of 
%»ajpr«i»« «ai yo^ i»o»«til)ly «aa« durlag t2i« noxt 
noatli ao «f tor tltio awntfa wo oq^oot to 1i« loadod 
49nm with Imoiao^K for tho ptt<tii:ing laouBO trfi^o. and 
«• hMO ycu will kiadly fAVor ao ia taking ia overy 
IkarrOL you ]p)0»oilily o«a auria^ iMooMtHnr, aa wo imvo 
%jriod to h9 Jttot ao lonioat aad iiioo aa vo know Jm>w 


*M ii«lK«o«i«4f« i#j^r«oi)ftUoii or y&nr limi«ii<y la 

irt §9% m Xi%%X9 .rooM in %hc^ Imrr^l w«.Tei::tO'^.^a», w» 
»tui2.3> 'bn v'lffftisBij !*i? r^rti*>jf jfi»r*«(ir<8, &» turnip ^dtrrrela 

l»9« to »4YiMi jf«yi «ia0xiUi|r %^ ffkiy ua ■«>»• saore 

loitor iai.4 *Bi4« 

**]§»« « 3r»«»9i-ivi^atlon of i&iw «ji««JL wo tuisdi i» 
in 0r4or» ao it ii» ^otUsM^ nojtyr liiie ««)i4 of tlio tino 
i«^4»!i tl»e £i&Ati'; %h0'Xi-'. W «»;%plot»d« 

7h# oesu^ot otAl^ for 40C lb1»i»*i»or (iUgr for 

IiWlo. |»or 4eqr for t«» Moa%£w»« «i:ii«^ v«ul)i bo j^rftOtio* 

WO iufcvo ohl|>£»«Nl ;r«u* ui» t>^ t^ oroooot ii«»o, XX»410 

^l>it*« Inislodi^ th9 ^ior for '^MoSft «« ^ro n^iXiUji; yeu 
invoioe to4«jr« 

T.^i->^ X«it«isVoo » %(a£4ii«so of XlJIfS^O bM»« ojiei imlf 
bU.0* jro« to ooMo to fill the d^«il« on i»M^ «« or« 
villi ^ to «Kt«ld tii^io aiufl'i^-?nt to u«o u$t tbitoo 
iMovolo at o r««.ttO»iibl« Huantity jior 4«jr* Zn fstott 
INI f«idi di«^08oa t« ao ov^rjrthia^ tJemt i» in our 
j^wor to mm9 it oe> '(MUQr o« poofti^o for ^cu« oiui 
ottfl'S'ljr jroa «lt5i "burrolo as n'it&v mm i><>a8ibi«? wh«a /«>* 
vnmt thorn* Wi on th«» half Vorvolo wo think «o iaad 
Vottor ohaai^ tteie sontribot to bturrolB* iu* you ooom 
to Vo uoini no ^^^^ barrolo ot <ai) toking oo MKOf 
'b»,]nroX.» as ^o^u oh-a Xii haY« t»ko» mlf 1i>«rt«io« (ua4 
«• viii |^r«9oo4 to ^stexk up our luO./ toarrol atook* 
ikat »» Swipo <m ^nrj, into jjorle b^rir^lo* Of oouroot 
%hio will moan ooneidorabl* of & ioo« lu us no oo 
teoTo ^-wstot tliro«»ijuftrtor in<0Bk otov^o emu >«ooi pr«K» 
yarod to toko ooro of ^our csoatmot for lkKlf«imrr«io* 

V# aatioo y«ur wiototo for ikk- to ^i&'Oenliiouo 
•kiapawAto* «M^ «« «ill !^e <^ for tito |>r«o«ot» la6»Um 
timt you owt toko within' tiao &««t wook ot iooot two 
•r iktroo «or»«* 

v» ^oooife#r iCf i^iAiiitiff '«rt»to »«a e^tor »«kiflc ro^iuoot for 
jjM^irvumt of hnsrimXm ^iiv<»r«4« aofitiiiuo4« 

*if« ]M>p« yeu will iiturdim u«> foi- li»«ini; «><» aM»r» 

Vut t^ Ke^olcuk pi»at is mkrrjtUlm KuMeet to /our 
osJll «i waif Um«» alwA «na6tt|(h %e mat* al»out flf* 
i9«si iiaouMand ^IIaf* «orth of o««9«rft(p;« tor ^uu, 

iktii& »hile jr«u «ir» tisin^ t)»e oeo]ptejriK|« o« lightly it 
»dte«» m kuetf ^9mA for tiiAt ^mA ef tSae lH4»iii«»ft«** 

Qi il» iM«t day defttiidimt r«n»iti«4 m fiimtdt Imtt m>tMl^t mmi 
•Aid in r^plf u %h» i*tt^rr pf lim<m0i*r 3« i3«emb«r 17 plftia* 

tiff WfOtfl, 

of ^narytil* a «<Hdt« ciartlil^ in nmtt w««dc«" 

tid* l«ti«]r viis t9pli*d t« <in t^ i9ih in ^ii«& ««r«fi«i«ttt 

<*^« Ymttm %c T»^ a¥l.« te «»ji|^iy witix ^c^-jr 
rt^utidi. .'■;^ui4 it^ m &t ofti99 init lB««iiM»iiK i« 
fit e @t^ja4t»tiXI £Mfitl onXy for t)%i» r<9a«eii w« tat* 
il«f«mri«ig sirajiMaatit of bcuriwXft*^ 

Qm imimaisc^ 1# iui<i M#ttia on jrAmutzy ^^ d«f«tt4tint wrote & X«tt«r 
r(»<tU)oetinft jilkltttlff to oattool. «a or4«r giToa for b«rr«^lo* On 
Hmuitjf 32 pluifttiff • >>y iotter, »tftt«»4 it woulO aonpljr vith 
4«f«i4Mftt*fi ro^oot* On Haroh S« {^Xstistlff wret^* 

*Wi» ■•*« iii iiic« to .-^^kc aiii.s?«-^Ri; of & fow ooro 
•f iMurrois to you« if ocnvenient*'* 

On tMo 8W9Kt (Uiy 4ofoiMU»ni r^^i^a yM»t ito woirolkeaoo «»• otil; 
full of barrel* Aa« to l^oic of intfiiiiooii in tlio aoimturoa alootel 
littc 8«u tJmt it inpto iiii»o»ei¥l« to oo«9>ljr with pl«iBtiff*t r*» 
<tttoet« On A»rU 11 4>l«latiXf woto tteot it li&d »c^ Wrrolo 
roft^ afi4 wouKi lUct rmry tm^ to ship tfei«« at lOtt»i ot X,U» r«to 
«f Olio oor a voolu Two doyo lotor plolntiff ropliod thet it 
tMHil4 givo 1^ turtimr pr^f)r» oa >'i^'j^^mt of laoti^ of bu9is>«oo« 
€to A$>rU 14 plaintiff vxoto. 


*Mi immt m. fmt of t'm»9 b«rjr«l» in our mt^t 
and if ^^aa Qun ^esielt^I/ l«t uid rjMp «y<9» h ao3fl9Bfit 
•9 w# «rwa 45«t tiMJSi «ut Of tfw front «f our w«r«lM»UL««, 

*¥« will <m<i«»&Y07 tiA« fijcut iwrl «r n^t i»»«Je 
to m»nA jTOu an erdvr fos* a esij^imi fif lMirr«l»«* 

«row4e4 with th« Umci^Io %hm% th«/ wiMStdd %o »Mp «$«te KA 
«»3''«sdais%« €36 %h« watt ctaijr tloi'«nai%i»t r9plx«4 tatJd Xh^y w«rt 
still itswi^o io %$k!0 tiim '^mrw^lm '^fer %!»» rei^^on Uwt 1m<»iii««(i 
Is T«ipy dull ««<& w« ar« g«i^tisig i» @Ar« old l»«arr«l» thfi^a «• 
•aa »•••* Oa Miay %^ ^ic&istifr inn»t« dafendant tlutt it had 
t«o OKTO Of 'ttviMrxNeXo wliioli it ^ Id lik« to «Mp, rh« aost 
da|r d«fft»daBt adrisad tlaat t)%«y ««rtt uaa'wl^ to «mr« tit^i ^uwrrMlm 
mm tiMtjr w«r» si^ttiag dowa tineix pl^mt* (^ Ji>ma 4 i^l&lntiff 
vroto ttv:<t it «aa aajngriag "omrr *ina« va t^nik /our ooatraott 
aea« #ld,&oo iprth e^ sfcatarial. for ^cur imrralo. i^^ faai ttoat 
»• t.4>ttld \m ^Toa aofi* afraaidftr&.tioii for tmmit o^** if wo 
lu£d aatiaipatad y&ur sot ueis^ at X9&*% a i>artia» of th.ia 
ooopera0e» «• woula litfva looktd for ^i»i»ea« oiaawiMtra* and* 
•MB wa hava «jrit%«a jr^u aairaroO. tli»i««* wa h^v« a ooupl« of 
^iara of tia^-aa 't»«rr»i« mmm u»« l^tad iile«$ to Mva jrour idaaa 
in tfea «a-t^<*r»" -^n tJsa a«xt 4«^ d'sfamt.^at- r«pAi«d "itoftt tha 
4;f.j?ti,U«*y ir* iHaa.^ doi^ tm4 it i» ini!»©aatM«? for tt# t« 
)M«aeiy« aoepaj%ie$a IVom aiqiliody**' 

»a hava aat out i» «r««t detaii tfe» asrr«ai»t'Rd«oaa 
Wtaaaa tii*' jpartiec. At ivt ti'«aa ««*« iJi» harv^la ahinjiwd in tl»a 
guaatttico iBhiaii 9l«k4*tlff Oi;jstan4o iu;c «ontra«t ra^airad* 
1% wiil ¥« aadiii thftt fraai iiareh 1 to Wa^«h 16 tliftra w«ra Iwt 
iiti 1»ajnra3.a alil^yaA and no tohlf %>arrala* wt«r ttoa plaintiff 

%»XT«X« ftt »a^ tiu». But il«4X0 )Mfcvir<»i« «»x-« ftUp|>«>4 prior %» 
Januiftxy I* XSC8, t)*«9 ^«i« «rla«i: «,jrM> ^i|lr«(it mt 1«y it« t«««« 
to «x^lr«« After tittut 4a t« durin^^ the woatlw of Jmrnrnty wml 
F9bnMx:3r, sat ««r« f^^i»«a, it i» trttit th&t ttn '^uraSa. 18 
4«f«ndfdKi r««iu*&t#4 j»2,«isiUff to 4i««entimitt ftJalpn^mtft uatiX 
furtltor n«tio« b«$»feue«, an 1% »t»te<l, thsi^ w@r« 8toalc(«(i cq^ 
with b«rrel9* Pi«&ii»ti.ff £m;r«<»a to cio ihi@ ftod la it» l«tt«r 
•f /^ril a 3tm^>»m»%*4 49t»n<iimX ia turn t« Imi mi X«Ki«nt as 
i><»eftiV)l« aWut r«iqiiirlag IsMrr^^la f<ijr mraMSit thipMARt. But 
plfkitkXiSf <}oiit«iii3i» tlMit t^ ilnaff pr»vid«4 In tH« dontr«ot for 
%h» affllT^ry of ^1 til® ^rrfflft l»y JimuaVgr X« 19fla, wkn extAMl* 
«d« f9r il«f«ii«iajit in k%9 l»tt»r of Juljr X* X90Vb wMoh «tat«4 
Uukt it would ink* aXX th« 1t»«xxeIo tJi«» aotttr«ot o&lX««l for 
cULtlioucli it niKbt h^ vmi^X94 tv Mlk timt th<? tiaui for do* 
li^wyy bo «.xl«iMlod bODTOfti Jimttoxy X* X9€S. But px&lmtift 
Aia not ao<i»f»t tMi» prop»ooitio«i aAd oo ^MioimlMtr 2 It &t»t«<i 
tj^t tiift tliAO for d^Xiv^TJlniE *^^ ^"^ l»ftrro|o uaa«r %k& ooia* 
tr^ot mui aoATlem %h& imd* This would tond t« ia4i9ftto tHiit 
«t tfa«t tlAO plaintiff 4X4 not ooti»i4«r t^ tiaio ]em4 1»ooil 
ojKt«n4«<a« v« tloifdc up^n o oMrofuX Qe»»iiJM»rfttion of tlio 
flOjrr«»9«ii<i«Bi«o botvooa %3Mpkr%i9» »mA ttM» snaAior of bstrroXo 
«lollY»r«4 flftd roooivodl tibot tbo oe«titrtta%io« ^ut up6« tto« 
eotttraet tor Uie j^nrtieo thomoolveo wfto thftt j^aJlntif £ <«ixo t# 
fumioii oaok ^ajrr^Xc «» a«f««iafmt voultt a«o4i in its buoinooo* 
not to oxoood* howoTor* 40^:; bsjrrtrXo a»d XCO u»Xf ttdrroXst por 
d«9r« thi« is f«yth»r bom* out toy tJsff f««t t»3*».t Uwf-mirAat^o 
Imoinoso w«» » »«w «at«njrlo« and 41?! not 4«t«1o|? «*« t»v» 
9&rtiofi hfii4 ^p«t it ^uX44 Plaintiff <ar<«ii tltit oantraat ift 


mXiiPis > ♦. S4T IU« 622* X» timt QftS* Uie lMr««iu« ccjapiaiQr 
teugiit IftOc^ IrmImAs of Mat frofft t»e i^alilag <K^yfiSi$ «tt tH^ 

?»»Ti««<^ th»t the imat •IwtO.d %• uiiifi?*^ a« «ra«rftd du^ijig 
ii^e- nimi^m «^n(U,B^ Ma«8ib«r $!L, i906» tim m»3Lt wuM ml tkH 

hikd ia«»*««L-^«a %n ptio*^^ mxivmritat wmf^ «»&« \mAmt &!%«> oaa* 
ixsiot »% th^ i^!fi%,ViMiX <»^*i'9<^« !^t ^a^A iMiXa tlUat 6a«Mb faiot 

t^ ^^&;:lt« Bat it «&« lml4 tiig^t t^ oi»sttr»f3t ti»n&iiuiv«»d 
momO^mt $1, X90ft« Oeua««a for jpl«aiiUff ikr«it« tMt th» 

X8X IIX« >^p* A81« i» in i^lttt« In i.hi9 tn»\hM% a«6« th» 
l»Art.l#» % thttir ifs.otioufi «cnf3tjru94 tiitir 0aintru9% «» r«» 
ssairinks thft ^uMfimln t» 1»<$ ttkipp«tl imi f^tuLt*^ m^ «ya«r«d 
lijr d#f«i9H^»at ^t not to exo««4 4C<3 pmt 4«^» «t«t<l XCC lUKlf 
^am3tt^l» i^9t iiSi^r a4 aot tim% muA^r ea ««ali fii^rtietoXi^ i»jf 
««irfrr«4 Hr tlur 9(mtrii«t« t» th» iW^ertAmfH Mak tma*, iuM% 
9i%4ia, tJfcMp oontrftot |Mr«nrid9«i %1m% tba qshdX mms^fOKj? fiiaouIA 
•Mp niii« «iiv« of oo«kl pmr vooll rjr<»u i>««^ JSi* 19 CB ustU 
A93riX i* X9<^« ?lM «o«X oQMpMr &i4& no% «;«liv«r i&Xf}« ooaw 
por «rtid(« but th« tuMiANiar of CMr» «««<« li-i.'ii)^xjr, «««>« wi^o 
nor* tlmm niiM* ooaie wo#M$> Xo»«, fts»a «b«»« ifotieei uplift «t all* 
TIM ooort iboxa ttet tiM ooatntot o^ul4 li-^ ooagtru^^ i« tteo 

XiaM of U» »«tion» of %ik* partitt* to sm>«ii th»t aiii« ttfim 

l^4»r w««k en em «v«nMipi sjbioultil b« f^t«.XlTiRre4« sjp^t not &lii« 
sMftys •Aah «•»](• Uei tii»t laa^ie tod !ihlpEa«»nt« df oeel «ietwaiy 
flh»<l« «T«rai{«4 a4A« Mfn )^ir w««ik, Tim »uit iMie tiaro'i^ht ftr 
(dMtiteitgeii f^r r»iXu3rfi of tM»iF mt^X <Mmtmy t^ 4*.liT«r »«a»r4U 
toi tM) tia« euat»a«t» f^r^^ »n e^«2)i1»lt ivat offvriMl ^ plaiMi* 
tiff Mkfi.m Tm,t »a4« in t>i« «f :i9«r ar fivf^Miig^^i}! »fi4 vltloli 
tJB#iv«d t3^«! ntfUlHir of (myfi « fta4. ^ra^^r^d «ttob wtttk« 
«l««n:raiv4ii(i i?isf*ife«r th«» RimWjf ir«« *»v»r* ©r ''aJaert*, 
tizRt. i«c YfJbsAtbiiX- iJwir^g ««ir« iaoie«r 3l»»«i tlMMn Alnt oar« 
«laipp«(i, tilmwlti^ %lm\ d«»f«i»(lMit i»«4 lAt«iirpr9t«d tb« ooii* 
traoi A« r*9ttiriii4 na «,T«nm« of alii* oar» ^or ««Nifc« irisw 
oourt ttftid* *Tlsi(i «r£»l« «xM1rt.i nhoirt fl&^cijrlyt too» ttent 
d«ftttt4«ai in orror wis »t «U tte tte«» tia^ir«ii« B0t«4« 
£M»0t«ii «a %im niiisimtnttt vmder tids (xiiitK««t» an<s tlmt It 
r««t«ai»«<t ti^t. ttn iiv«m«» of aiae d«ar» jf^r wMk wao i4ao 
y«<lttJur«a«ni of %h^ mn%rnss% «it4 stot i»iil« mxm for ovexy 
«0«i( re«;ardl^»« Of th« OTorohifNttonto of otjiter v«eks« as 
MfomUmt 4r orror »ow ooiatoodo* in %!»» ino^^at oooo tho 
MMMlMr of Imrrolo i^ioh pl&iatiff «o»t«a«» tlio oontxmoi 
oikllod for ««y«, fnn tito -rox^ iMiiliiiiiaft* ««v«ir d«a.ivoyo4« 
vo tlniidc UMi oaoo «&to4 io net in point. 

10 iMMro oauutiLiMMl th« oth«r j^into mttti» ly «io» 
foftOOAt «iad %Mxdt %im;i wre -#ltmut e»rit» but niau^ ini 
Iwfvo told t^t tbo ooniroot oonatmod in th« iit^ht i>f tlwi 
ftOtion of tlio ptuttiftt* 4o«o not roiider ««f«ii(tatat iio-Vio, 
it will h* %iam»m&imw3f to <»t«>to ouir r««»o»8 for iioX<iiiia$ 
ill* otbftr poiats uat«iial»l«(« 

T)M Jttf)0»oi)t of ito atipsrlor (,:ourt of uo&k :ountjr 
io r*T0V»«4* 

S^Q • sold? 


scnmBti VAcx3n£| soii^As^. 



M, JUSXXOS 0*CCS»€kR 4«liv*rft4 ^Iw opinion 9t 

l^lAlatlff* brought suit fk^»i»«i 4mttm.^.mx rftilmttA 
•M9«iv to jr««Mnr«i> d»a«iKft« for lo«« %• « oari«i«Ml of toaMti)«« 
tr»assiort«cl fron lf«roe4» anlifoniia» id SaJt L«k« 2it>/« Utftli* 
TlMir* WM a ir«r<ii«t ^mi Judumtmi for #345* C'O ia plAlntlffs* 
favor to rt'ymti^m vMoh tl4<» «9^«a1 1« protaoutad* 

Bo fur »• ataiarlal i}»i f«iOte ajra tl^soi a r«f7ig«rflp 
«»r Ml- «&• pla«*«l at M>r««4 ^uijr S, 1914, for pisiiaUffa «a4 
l«a4«4 liy th«A thftt 4ajr witik ta«at»«« to be uMppad to CgiiMi 
Utah* ¥IM leadinc vaa oaai»l«ta4 about 6 f.M. of th^' oaaa 4ar 
an¥ at 11.3C that night th« ««r «aa «t«rto4 for 4a«tiiiatien« 
thfi fol lowing 4ay, July 9» «hiXo in transit tiM» mr was 4i» 
irart«4 to Salt LaJco City. It r«aolMi4 Qfioa and «a« 4«llTero4 
to %)m Gr^a^n enort i*ia« BailroaA Sow^aiqr »t 2s3S ^.iii* July 
U. aati mo for«ardo4 July IS at &}3C A.M« to i^alt IrfOco Sity 
vlioro it arrivo4 two iaouro lator* 7t^0 4«M«» and «a« {kl«oo4 
on torn traok at 3t00 y,a* of th« oaaw* 4ay, July XSi IftoiBf 
Owiitfay iiotM«g farthar vaa dono loitil tlw» following ttoiid«y 


«*mlas «)»n Ui« oMMl^MM mt» mlifi94 of ttiM? ttj^jrlvia. Xt 
WMi etli^uXttt^di that Ui« tmr li»ft li«jro«iiii on Ui« fintt r«^ul«Y 
Ikrftin »ft«r ioa^ng ami that, after <t<«liv<tr3f to th» oonnaotiiif 
ro«4 at 0c4«B it VAS trftnK{}0]rt«a to £^«uLt lmk9 Oit/ on tlsy» 
flrat t?«lii l*JMnnie f«r tiMt $»la(H!!, tiitw» r«o0r4 fui"yTi«r «how» 
tiMi th« t«n«i%«#» w«r« in i^d ^m^itivs ithmn \&wi*4. »m thai 
th«y v^r« in a «!«»««•# ecnditioii vlmn iim 9&t Vit» op«n«<) vn 
J«3l)r U «t jSalt Lak* aity, Afi«r .plaintiff* prcnrad t^ 4«» 
llTtrjr of tha towatoae ta tli» trfmapcrtatian QCtamrany liA «»o4 
ooadltien an4 tlw ^aaaij^t af ttir-ia in i»«at L«k» Cit/ in a 
tfaauimiM (»»Q<lition« inad tlta ajweunt of tlte ijla;;>a^a*« tbftj/ rftsta<ft» 
Xt aaa«ui to tea aonaatiati that t£4.a tta«i« aut a i>jri«i^ faaia «»»•• 
J»Ialntlffa* alain aaaw* ta 1i»« baaaa 9n th» tlamrjt that t]n» 
taantaaa Vi^ra <u»eMMKt4 Itty raaaan of tl^ failure af dafan^ani 
to koay tlMi r«n%» of tha aejr ai»an »n^ th^ a^lajr i» th« arri^nki 
*i Salt Laka Sit/* 

Dafj^ndant offorad avid >!io«r tandlng to 9mm that tho 
•Mr tMfta iJmaajwrtad witMn tto« ttaual an^ mtat<Muu7 ti»« «md 
tlMt tiMt air Yonta of th«) m» w«r<i k^pt ofian in &coord»no« -vith 
ttM» tanu af tha teill of ladincs* fls^ra is no 4i»»%k%9 tout tDat 
%im mr f«umi»ba4 ««a tiMi kint^ of oar ordi'irad ^ plaint If fo* 
fba imr vaa aoi te liNt iood Wt ana to Im» smm4 undar standard 
vaatilatian whi«Eh in the inatani oaaa iftaant t^ii^t %hm vanta 
witrm to toa kapi oimihs ao aa to porsnit t)a« tomfttoaa to ripan in 
imAoit* ^fandant ajr«iiOa tteat itinoa tikia midieputad avidanea 
itf that tha v«ita ««ra k«^t opan as ra«iiiir«d the plaintiffa* 
oria» fa4|if <»Mia «aa thae ovarooM* laad. th«r«fera, thff iMurt 
olMliad hoTO diraotod a varaiot for dafandant at tha dloaa ef 
ali tha ffiTidanaa* naintiffa aif^ua th.^t th» vitnaaa Aari^ht, 
for d( fondant* If^ittifiad th»t if tha toaatoea whan loa4ad wara 


ia ttot oonditloa a» t««Ufi«d i» «md **if tttftnda-Ni v<iimtil*ii«ii 
««• ebsttrrvd la ijrMUiit* the t«ia»t<» $i irout d have b<>ffn in gooA 
«OMditxon upcMft nrriYftl «t dcstiiiftUott and, tltc^r<^for«, thin 
would «K>ntr&v«rt the other ovidRno^ offeerod }^ ti^fandftiit to t)M» 
•ffoot llMtt tlam v«»io varo kept »pvm mmS. n«e«oeMrlly prf'fient m 
«%i«»tioe of foot for the Jury, tb? ooaio^aitloc of •.•oun«cl for 
laaintiffo oo o Mittor «f I«« i» omtad* t)ut It i«> not iMrn* 
•tti V the fa die In tiM* reoord. Io«h«r«^ do#8 it apj^oor tloot 
the wilaeoe .^arlcht tostiflod timt if the Y^tiis were kept 
oi^os the tojKoto<^» would hoYo orriTOd In igeod oottdltioa* »or wot 
ho oolcodi majr sueh ^tto«tioA« Sarii^ht wao m» ^iitpeoter of fruit 
«ai TO^otaMtfo for the lllimiie Ceatrol KiMilroa4 «aci hod ooa» 
oidoraU* oxiiorieaoo in ittopooiiim Yorioao kindo of jioriofaohlo 
v«isot«,1»Ie« ineladiag tonoteeo* Xt i« sfLoor. therefore, tlmt 
there woo no oridoiMHi offerod thot wo^ild in ooy wmy dief>«to 
thot ou^MMittod Igr def«Oikt»t, rimi %i»% the ventii w^ro ke^it 
OfMUi in treutoit «• ordered* ismtk^ th«»r«f«'r«?, th« orijWfi fodfl 
•MHi Of ploiQtUffe hoYing heeti ovoroosM the oourt oheuld kmvo 
direotod Pi Yordisi for def®»a«tt» 

it w»o ftiipttiotod th»t if o^^-^rtoin |)«r»oite w«re eoliod 
tho^ we id io»til> thAt the tii»o oonoMftod l»iy ti'd.e ohlp&eni ob» 
•oo4od the oidnoditle time of the footoot troino utuodiihtf thie 
oimrwoter of goodo oY«r tho mam route liy oowea houre end fiYO 
otiinttee, l»ut that the tieie oetttolly eonauMod hy the traiso 
ho:^liO(l thi* parti <^4l or oar did not oatoood the ueuol un4 
mtmtmmry runainn; tine of the footoot irolao ^uirtdlitifi; ehlpoento 
•f the kina hotween the poi»t» iji quoetioA, There wao no e\il* 
4«aoo to the contrary. Xt fl^llowo that if th«^ e«a> aeYod at 
the ueual and OttotOMosy rate of oi^ood of the faoteot traiho 
luosdiiag tOMOtoeo hotwoen the poiato in queetioa there wae 
aa dolajr ia tke ohiyaent for wMoh ia«i(itlffe oaa oo^^aia. 


Xy«n if tJ»(*r« «•>• ft <i*l»^ of ••T«tt tM>ur« or aM»r« th«i-« i» m 
•Tid*iio» ttf lyoijr kiiia in th« reoord tltat such dtHiij^ c»ii««<ji ftogr 
f«jrt of tlM dtuBAfi* alft|jw*4« 

fi»f««i4aat orr«r«iia if} ftTldaace » |pr«iKt ti^^ol of i«»ii« 

•« tJRi|iia*iit« of p«rialiiilBile fruit* sm4 v«c»ift^l.<e« with xftf<»r«nc»* 
tft r«frig«r«tion« T«ntili»t4on« wto* Thi« «^aenc<^ ««« offorfid 
«M^ftr«ntljr oa tlw tb«ojrjr tim^t j^iaintiff* s!boul4 h«tT« or4«rt<l 
thm OAT ie«d ft« t«i» m»M %im h«»t m»Xhe<k to imftturo tfa* oaf* 
trftooportfttiofi of tta* iettatoos* Koii« of ihip eri^nm haA 
«mr iMftTing ^n th^ iflMitwnt «»••• Tteo iiinttiti 'hm^ ie whotlwr 
ilM plaint if f« «<?r« givttii tiui kind of icnrio* tiM;^ «niti«9t»«l 
for* iuk4 vb«%&»r it woulcl !»▼• !>••« %r«tt«r to nfiv« ioo4 th* 
is IsooiAo til* quotttion. 

Siitoo tho 9vi4«»a« elio%o without «ontx%4ictioB timt 
ttM vonto in th« mut woro ko|>t Oj^en plaintiff ft^ -^rlmm fjaalf 
•»«o «fto •fmtmm» 9»& %h» oeujrt otooulil havo Airttot«(i « vov* 
Aiot for %im <l«f«ftiMit« 

flM 4ii«#i«itt Of tiM c^uftt^ Oo^^t Of cook couaty &• 

■;;U5 "u^C/it 

367 • £6;2$2 



ClliaUI't COURT, 

219I.A. 639 

m. JUigtXCB O'CONNOR 4«liT«r«d th» eplniOB •f 
the fiourt* 

Plaintiff brvught «n *«ti«B tf Miwwps&t AgRinvt 
<l«feBd«jit elAlniaf $100,000 for loa» •f ooomifiGionci, lest* 
•f tlB* and ftxptta»^B inourr«d bjr reaeon ef dcf^ndstnt* !>; l>reaQ)i 
0f a o«atr«9t. Plaintiff fjil<?d a ecoend aaendod tt^^edaration 
ooaeiBtine 9f two oeuats ie whioh a g@nerr-il and cpecdnl 
d«Biurr«r vns •tt^tAln«4 and the siilt dleminc^d »t plaintiff's 
«9«ts to r9T«rs« whien plaintiff prosftoiites this appeal. 
Ih» only 4a««tioa, th*»ref©re, for decieion i« whether either 
•f the oeunte states a good qauba ef action* 

Attached to and aade a part of the deolaratioa Vgr 
referenoe are a aunlier ef exhibit*. This is contrary te 
the na«B ef ooamen law pleading* Ve will, hewever, eadeaver 
to paee en the merits of th(> eeatreveriur, 

flie allegtaions of the declaretioa nre imcfrtaia, 
iadfffinite and ehseure, but ac we uaderetand them they are 
in substanoe that on August 1, 1916, defrndnnt, as trustee, 
ewned or controlled about &4000 aores of land in nolorade, 
pert of which was eoet and part we«t of the l>latte Hiwer; 


thftt on timt «Uit« it raplo/ttd plaintiff t& obtain pur<siMi»*m 
f«r th« land f»r wbieh it agreed to pay him a ooaundi^Bion of 
*#5»00 por a«r« t%r all irrigabl« landB and IS.&O for non* 
irrigablo iMida.* Mtt «a« to advortieo XTam Ismd at Ma o«a 
•X3iona«* The eontraot irao for a pariod of tiro years* la 
aooordaneo vitb th<^ tenw of the eontraot plaintiff prooe«!!d* 
•d to oarry out hio part of the agroomant by advertioiag and 
•ndeavoriag to got yarohasoro for th« lr»act from Auguat 1, 
19X6 • to NOTomhor 15, 1917 » wh«n ha loarnod that dofondaai 
would not earrjr out ita ooatraot. Attaehod to and raad« a 
yart of the oontraot waa a m&p shoving the lano irM ah vaa 
loeetted in ecvoral tovashipa a honing th« irrigation aye tarn* 
eto. In the argnnont at th« bar eounaal for plaintiff 
statod that tha only aOiqM>ttln^ mad« against def^ndsnt was 
its failuro to conray irrigated lands; that no er>fl^laint 
was made against it for ita failure to convey nen*irrigated 
laadst thi$t tly reason defendant did not oonvey irri^;ated 
lands was that the daa of the reaerToir of tyte irrigation 
syatsm broke thereby roloasing all the water so that ttie 
land was then not irrigated. He further argued Diat the 
oontraot roi|uired defendant to conTey irrigated land ts 
yttTdhassrs saoured by him. It w»e also urged that the only 
fflOdifioation of the oontraot of August 1, 1916, vas that 
plaintiff shouia fir«t sell the Ismd west ol the ^latto 
HlTor bc'foro prooeeAing to sell that oast af the rirer. 

We think counsel's argunent is untenable beoauee 
there is nothing in the oontraot to indioate that the land 
is irrigated or that it would rereain so. for it expresely 
yrovidoa for ttas eoAToyanee of "irrigable lands* and not 
that tha land should aotaally be irrigated at th« time of 

mmn^rmmm, yurtlMVMrt, t^ otodifiMtien ef th^ 0ORtrsot« 
<la.t«d 8#pt«KJto«r IS, 1916, expretely proTid«« that If ai^ 
9ur8h*««r of th« land it ima^I* to aalc« first F«ym«at oa a«* 
eount tf a total failure of oropt due sololy "to th« failuro 
or inaMlit/ ef The Waarmmttt Hosortvir and Irrigation Som^eaigr 
to oupply tho };»vur(dia«or vith a Quantity of «mt«r r«;aoonably 
8Uffioi9itt to pr«T«nt aueh failure", tiwn plaintiff ohall 
ROt be roquirod to olatnin anothor purohA^er. TM« ol early 
staowe that ther« woo ao prorleion in th« agroonoAt tlsat do- 
fondant o>)ould maintain the land as irrigatod. Plaintiff 
in faot, ohowo that tto v<uch obligation wae assunod \ty it« 

Tho daraagao oiaiMed hy plaintiff eould not be re* 
ooTorod «v«n if th^rc ««?re a ralld and binding oontraet. Ho 
••okn to reooTor ooaniosiono, conp«n«ation for th(^ tiao ho 
spent in endearorin^p to soil the Isndo, and the aonoy eaqpendod 
by hisi. Of oouroe, if th^ oontraet were oarried out, the 
»sot plaintiff oo ild reooTor tfould be his conmilssione, and ho 
is apparently endeavoring: to fcfore© the terma of th* oontraet 
ia this aetioH, In the«» nireuaietaaoes he couIq not recover 
anythinc for the labor he had expended nor the money spent. 
Xf he were ssalcing to rweoTor for th«eo latter t-wo ittas it vould 
have to be oa the tlteory th jt the contraot was reeoindod and 
at an end. In no view of the case does the declaration etixts 
a eauso of action. Whether plaintiff Ints a good cause of 
action for any part or »11 of Me claim as oojamiSKion, labor 
or money expended, ve do not decide for th r<>a«on t,h«it the 
only matter before ue is whether the declaration Biatee a legal 
oauee of action. We hold that it doe* not and the domurrer, 
therefore, was properly sustained and the suit disnissod* 

The jttdi^ent of th'^ Circuit Court of (Jook .bounty is 
afflmed. AWIHW©. 

* h'A, 

t« - 2SS4f 

J ^ 
Defendant in Mrrptt 

MStoms wmsmxt \ 

mmm to 

19I.A. 64 

\ / 

Mg, JV&TIOl e'CCifiifOK A8liT«r«4 th« •pliticn Of 
tiM Murt, 

Ijr t>)i» writ vf 9rr9r tlMi 4«f«)B4wtt, 0«er«« Orftr* 
holt, •m*ik» to ri^voroo o JudgsMiat of Um lEioiiaiyol CN»urt of 
{ttilofifieo finding hia iruilty of oontritnitiRg to ih« d«lia» 
<|u«no9r of » dtild oontrarjr to too. 4S, )»•»•• Ch. 33 H.s,, 
oad ia^oing a oentenee of on« yo&r in tin Houeo of Corroo* 
tion ttRd « f4n« of $200* we liave boforo no onlj tho ooa* 
aOB law reoord, %hm oridenoe not being preoorrod hy bill 
of oxosptioits. And tlto oelo iiuootion to be dotominod is 
vhothoar th« iaforautieii olmrgod dofoadant with the oonaieftioa 
of tho oriMi for vhifl^ ho wao oonviotod. 

The awom i»forr«p.ti»n wlUch wae filod by l«aTO 
of oourt i« «8 followo: '^lathoriAO i^. Staatiaoii, a ri^aidoat 
of tho 01 tj of ahio««o. i« tho ^tato aforeoaid. in hie own 
proper porooa, ooatoo now horo into oeurtt «nd in th« nana 
and bgr tho authority of Tho J^eoplo of tho State of Xllinoio, 
glToo tho !3o«irt to bo infor^tad tmd understand that George 
(hrorholt hor^tofero, towlt, on the 15th day of Jtmm, A.l>« 
1919, at the 01 ty of t::hi<»€0» efor« aid, did then and there 
willfully «n4 unlawfully and icnowingly «nepurag0 a nlnar 

- d« 

♦ V 

^d.ld vok^nT th« «#« of xa yetirs, lewlt, Lauis* Sl*d«]it, to 
>•«««• a 4«liiiqa«iii 9hiia b> in^ucinis h«r to r«taisln away 
froa tMr !«»«« in Tiolailon of seeUen 42 a»n, ohRpt«r 38 
ii«Yts4i(i st«tute» ©f th« Et«t» ©f a;iliiu»lii<i «»atr»jp;y to tb« 
fom of thM stftitttttin sueh s&ft© iSAde and proTi4ed nad 
ngftittAt tii« P««o« and Mgnltjr of tha £>aopXa of th« iiitata 
0f Illinola.* 

1% i« elfBHURnttiry timt &<& liif&nsnatios li]c(» on in* 
Aioiwant auat al!t«s« all th« fs.*i%z neonaaaxgr to eonatituta 
tba oriaitt with wiildti t.h^ ^af^aueuit ia ciWijrgaU* ■t'aapla r, 
iiJSXM* a®0 III. ace; g^ODlf? t. ^igard . 284 Ul. 6aa. If 
it fail a ta din so it le inj^uffloiinit to nu»t«fciii & Judajaaot 
araa aftar n pl«e of gwiity. iJlftyfemUfci v, i'gopla . 218 III, 
481* A d«llse»ii«Bt eJaild ie <i«fiziad 1»y tbM lagialatura in 
tha aaotion #,>>oy« oit94 «a fdlloir»: 'A daliaquent child 
ia ainsr mal« vYm, while iiit>;«i»r th^? ago af aevantaan (17) yaara« 
ar any famala ehlld, wlN)^ und«r thti «£« 9^' «iightaen (18) yaajra, 
Tialataa ftny larr of tMs State ©j- i« ine©rrigiM« nnd knowingly 
aaeaoiataa with t hi area » Tioioua or tanaral pitrfsontii or without 
Jttat eauaa ^lid without thf> eono«>nt of ita ;piar«ntB. guardian 
«Bd oai!*todian abaenta itaalf tr(»m ita hom0 ©r plne« of abada** 
ata« It will bR noticed thst the Infomation in ttoe inctent 
enaa eliargaa that tha dafandant enaour««ad I>oai»a Sladaic ta 
baooma a daXinqu«nt ahlld "hif induolng har to rfmnin mvnj 
fpea hmr iiamm in wiolatlon of uaetion 42 ii.K, , ^hnptar ^8, 
Bawiaad Statutaa of th* vtt^ta of Illinoia,'' w« think no ona 
would aay that if tJM dafenJant wa« ehargad mnrttljf with tha 
Tiolation of thia aaotion of tha Statnta, that auoh oharga 
vatLld ha auffieient. Tha iskforia^tion deaa not charsa that 
dafandarit iadnaad har to ramain away froa her hama *without 
Jnat oauaa and without tii« oonaant of ita s>«ranta, guardian 

/J 4 

or ouBiodiflm," Tot mi^ht th«it mpp^»n» %hfi iRdue«Ri«iit sdi^tet 
iMtY* >••» with th» oenacnt ftf the eMltf's pAr«ntft. 7bc 
Kl»Yan«ki ea»* is Ttry slifiilAr to the tmm* «t Var and Is 
authority for the oonelusioa v« haYS r««oh«d. Th«r« Klavfto* 
ski «tts indicted fsr ferging «« tjru« and g«nain« « ooi^Il* 
a«nt«rar thsatrt pass with ietentlon te d<^frnu4. He was 
arraigned, plsad guilty, fm^ s«itt»ae«d to the i>«nit»ntia7y» 
A writ of srrer was sustl owt and the r»upre«« ;jourt held tJw 
indit3tm<mt fatally defaatiTa. In that oase sec. 1()S of ttoa 
CriKlttal Csdtt. for %hm riolation ef whi^xht d«f«xid8at was found 
guilty proTidod that avc'Vy person who sh&uld falsely otalco, 
alter, forge or oounterfeit «e^ theatre ti«dKet or imass for 
the ftdiBiesion of aqy person te tm eatertainttent for vhidli 
a oonsi deration was r««(uired ehoitl4 be iaqprisen«d in the 
fositentiary, ete* the iadlotnent did not allege that aa 
aitaissioa fee w«s charged for th^ entertainawrit for whieh 
the forged ilidctt waa ieeaed. Tb' isourt, th r«>fore, held 
the iadiotm«nt fatally defeetive and ineuffioient to sustaiii 
thf" ooaTiotioa oTon after a plea of guilty. la the instant 
case we think the lafeanaatlon is so fatally defeotiTO that 
it will 90% sustain the ooiiTietioa although no isotien te 
Quaoh w«a vade* 

Sinee the infor^aatiea way he aatnded, { geeiale w. 
3»li» . 188 111. App. 417) the iudgzaent Of the municipal CJourt 
of Chioa^ l0 rerersed and th«> cause remanded. 

txxstm, n/. AHi> Twm&GXf J. cojimm. 






219I.A. 640 

wu imtim o*ccatsoft d<!^iiT«r«4 th* ^pmica ^t 

ae«u%ery or<l*r girttnting m writ of injunatit^n* 

TlM r« 00 r«U shortly, discdosoa th*i en April 1.9th 
IfSO. tiM mt^matioaal Grand I<odge» Broiherhoea of liall* 
roftd yatrolMoU, «kn«l oth<»r parties filed t>3i«tr bill of «»»• 
plRint ikgAiaot Charloo £• Cop«laad And ethers preying for 
*a Ittjunetlnn. moooimtiiNK end otiwr relief. Aftervarde on 
Hey X9tti» 1080* ^ le«Te of oeurt, an ewonAed bill of a<m» 
plaint v»e filed end en lUigr 80tk en 8U»tien of «om|»lataMtto 
eTter aotioe and « h«Ariac it vae ordered ttoat a writ of 
injmetioa ioeue reetr&lnlog the defendant Ctaarlee K. Coy«» 
land froM aoting »• preeidaai of tiie oe«plainaat aoeooiatien 
and furtJaer enjeiaed Mm and other defend&nte from iaterfor- 
iSC vith eortaia of the oeeq^lainaato in the dieohergo of 
tlaeilr duties ao offiof^rs of Vm MiBplainant asoooiatiea* 

The bill and th« eaanded bill were both verified 
and tho Matter earn* on for hearing on thn faee of the aaendod 

?^ :>;*«. 

1»1X1 Hn&, th«r«f<dr«* the ^rtfttttrlal aJLle^atioae ftf it ar* 
adiKltt«(i to hm tru*, U^ ^ i9MX»T y. 01 ty ef Chieat^ . fiXe Hi, 
114, '£h» tmt/mritti All«^a.tloai» of iho •m»mim4 bill b«ljic 
«daltt*<S ft« tru* It amlcflre no 4iff«r«n9« wlMtihor th^ bill 
WAO T«rlfl©4 or not. ypwley y. fOTylrr . 204 Ul,82j K^ooh 

Y. iiBiiJLiija. ^ 111. A4.P. 4W; ^stifl;^^,^ y. jummo. ^^ ^^^^ 
A{»». &992 ^i^i^m imffffiffffii -^.,« '^^ fM:mm* ^^ ^^i* *^i* 

9rtt« thlo it follotm thst ih« objootioii »wt« b/ (i«f»n4»at« 
to tli« Yorifloiktloii aro in hg 9«^ nAt€ri«tl on tihlo 69{»««1« 

¥h« bill ftiid «i»ond«d li>ill iB^it^- vrjf h»ii'ky Avmwtk, 
&OMO Of th« ttlloigAtloae Rr« e&nflietiniE «xid taamr of th«ia 
ere diffioult to ttna«r«tan4 &l nil. But th« eubstikiioo of 
th« oharff'^o mm<&i» voro thnt th« Iniormiiloml Qr&nA Lodgo, 
jatroth«rDoo4 of lUitilr&«4 BRtrolmoxi it nn uniBoorpcrntod 
Yolttiitikrjr »s«to<iifttlon maam up of » grand »!t<i ftubordlsubto 
lodgoo teMo of ti»« objeoto of vhlab «r« oo otatod in tho 
oontitittttloD. to ntmli th« olmr«ot«r mnd inoroaoo tho ability 
of r«ilro«i4 iittlroXmmn ftaa to adYanoo tbo infe«r<»«tf of »uob 
yi^trolMOA for tho Itneiofit of th^moolYOt and to bonofit the 
WK^loyom of thumi to alleviato di«tr«o« artioiag oiok an4 die* 
ablad »oiab«ro« to bury decf^aeed ^oiabere and to proYldo for 
the vidowo RRd orpibaitM of tjoooaood sojabarBj that th» Oread 
Lodgo ha« i»«uod ehartom t,o approxinately forty two tub* 
ordinate lodgeo and that the moaiberahlp is about i^iMi; that 
the ori^aiaatioB is eu^tiorted by duos oolleoted fro* mmabero* 
•to. The bill farther ooto tt» that oertaitt offio^ro are pro- 
Yidod by the donotitutien for the ooaduot of tbe b^eiaoce of 
ihit aoBOoiation, «Ad it ie then avarrad that the defendant, 
Cbarlea 1. Oopol.aad« io aa«oeBia« to aot ao preoident of the 
aoffocdatioa without autliority; that he haa saeYor been elffoted 


property h^lnitXnfi to th« Ai>»OQi»iion jsmd in a<rnv«trting thv 
funds to >al« ^wn use; that h<» is jij^U'entiftu k>/rt«ln of th« 
•OMplttlHAiitfi w)!© <»r» effle*;^r« ©f Uu* »«(«i elation from pejr» 
fomtiBc th«lr duties. Th« \$UX i^rn^r. th&t Coptlaml b« on* 
JoiB«d froia AsnmlRg te »et «.» pr<!^«id«n% »n4 tfeat th«re V« 
an ftO««afitin^; «a<f. thsi-t h« ls« deereed to paj wJmtwvor ie found 
to bo duo And O'^in^ from hiu tc» th« ft»»0 6iatlen« 

XiwfimaAnto «r(iu« thnt <K;ulty h&» n& jajrlediotlon 
to iiit«rfer« in th«r o»e«> for th« x-@Koon tlcmt «ver> II' ''JiopftXaad 
voro not noting ft^eordiaiS ^c» ^^^ rul«o »na ri^$uXatioa» of tho 
•T40r, thi» would be « sufttt«r te bo tikkon u|» and diepoood of 
mm proTld^d in tbo bgr^lmrs and ocnatitution of %h». ««&ociatioa« 
and oino* tJsM»»o otoi^a bavo bema taken VKiiUtjr ba* no jurlodio* 
tion. It io an •I«s»«ni«xy prinoipio tb^i the jurlodiotion of 
a oourt of aK^uit/ snay b« iarek«d to prpv»nt fraud, and in tbo 
inatant easo, «inG« tb« aile^atione of thn anmidod bill* whieli 
are h«r« admit tod to b«^ traa, obarga tliat Oe^^land ie aoouaiac 
to a«t a» i^rfreident wban h« has n«T«r lifan eleotod aueb and 
that «o i» ooll«ctini; the firndfi of t.h«» aottooiation end convert* 
ia« thea to his own itaff. It ie i^uoh a fraud as will bo onjoinod. 
and tbi»» too, without r^ar^^ to th« soiTone^ or in»olT«n<^ of 
Oopeland. The vrit also enjoined Copeland fro« lnt«)rferitt« 
tfith o'Ttain of the oomplainaate wh© are alleged to b# offio* ra 
•f th« Broth<^rli»o4, in the dieoharge of their duties* This van 
justified ttftder the aiie<$aUona ftino« it ia tk-rmrr^^ that these 
eeoqilaiiiants , who ar» offie«r» of th*? as ooii^tion, iiave been 
prevented bjf €N»peland fre« diBOhargiflft their cuties. 

(^nplalnt is also made that the aaended bill seto uy 
auftttera that ooourred after the filing of the original bill 
and it ie contended that this oan only b^ done by supple»*ntal 

{•wi« =M.i ui '5«fei'*- 



bill ftad not toy wammi*^ bill. £4iii«e n* «ii«v«r «»» filed t« 
the orifiiiail lilll it ««« prejis-er to ss«k« tuoh All^^^^ationa tgr 
mijr of attoa^oat* £ioo. 8dft Story* e Iq. ]P1* (9th «4«); &X Snty, 
i»X.. * W. p. lOj JAiXX ▼. S£242ia» 31 ili» Ap». B5t. story, in 
th» ftootion eit»tii, fttgro, ''But ih0 ia»tt^r introctuood lety MMmdk 
aioat MA«t not bo wftttor which luio bapi^iMrd •i»<»« th« f iliac 
•f tiio bill (vMetli i» tomod now »Att«r) unlooet iii<l«e4» tli« 
4of«a4«ttt Imui aet put in hie anovor, ia vhioii «as« ttea bill 
laay b« aaiondo^ by a<tdiae aupplonoatal natt«r«« 

Tho »r<t«r of thw S^«irior oowtt of J« k "^unty 
let nffirmail* 

tAYLOR. 9* J, A8ju XmM'MS, J, ';fJfOUH» 

n» • 25107 

a ettrpcT^tloii, 


Yxxjuum u* Lmiia» 

219I.A, 640 

»li. JUBTICI tWOmm <l«liT*r«d th« opinion of 

thft oeuri. 

Ttao plaintiff oorpcratioa brought thi» ^uit on 
* pwtaiuworsr AOt« ox«^t«d 1«y th** <i«<^f<m<iiuit anti liijr Ma 
4tllT»r«d to tiv» plaintiff, thm o«i»« ««» «<ul»iltt«4 i« 
t^ ooart without « Jury <&n4 utt^r t»r ovldoaeo «&• ti««r4 
tlt« oourt faim<& th« l»ou«» fer th«f ieft)Gi&&nt aail eaterod 
juAiHumt aeoor^in^;!/. froa wMote tlM» i^l&lntlff haa p(?rf»oiedi 
tlda ap9«al« 

Xh9 plftintlff w«« In th«» bualnaae of farnishing 
lilffht, htm%0 iwwKir unti J<%nltor servlco to efflOf« Wildia/K* 
in tiM alt/ of SIilo»K|sa« It aatevea Into a eontraot for tlia 
rtoderlnc of au^ aarvloo with th« Aafendaat and two othara 
«a Individuftla, vho w««r9 the ovaara of a o«rtAi»i Wildlas. 
A earporatlon knoan as th(? 9m, L, Lavle Oo, t>aaa»« a taaant 
In that bull dins and t)Mt plaintiff furnichod aarTlo^^ to that 
Mxyoration. yroa tiaa to tina th« plaintiff r-^ndi^r^d blllo 
for tMs sartrlaa, to the oorporatlon, whli:^ blllo ffr« paid Vgr 
it, ettbaoquantly th« oox^oratlen cot into finAnoial difrioultias 

att4 failed tc 99)]f %%• MIX« ftti4 th« dl«>fenc^etnt(« L.aw1«, t)w 
yretideitt of t}3« eerparmtien, una«rtook to «>ff«ct a <soai$>«»i. 
tlen with th* art41tor», inoIu«ilii«s %h« ilnlntlff, 4t this 
tiA« tbe >l«,intiff liM.6 r'^n^^rvd Mil* to the* eor^orfttlea 
to tjtve •xtvnt of ♦taS.Oi, wiii«h reis*in«4 un^Ald. Th^ 6e» 
f«A<i«nt t««tifi^(i th«t whtttt h« «pproaeJ;9<t Mr. Qmhtm, of 
the plaintiff oo»9«agf» vith r«f«r«na« to tn« oottiioeitica, 
iM r«f ue««i to 1i«oo«« a itftrtjr to it. TSems oojaipoeitica pjro* 
poftftd «n%8 en th« baolft of e pn^m^^Rt of SO jtAr oout to oil 
th(^ ereditor* of t)&« @l«« L. L«'wi» Oo. th«» 4«f<^n^£iiit tuM» 
th»r t«tttifi<^a ttiAt iiraimift otatod tht&t l%# wouX4 ao@«jpt tb« 
«»rpcr«tloQ*» o)Mic^ for SO f>or oont of th« ^jneuiit of hio 
olftijt proTided th« d«f<»iid«nt jj^mto the plaintiff his per* 
tottftl not« f.r tt]« bstii&nGc* to mhinh pro:>osltiCR th» do* 
foai8«.at finslljr agrood. Ho aQOordln^Xy •.Tteouticd his nots 
to tho order of the jilAiatlff ia tii«s eum oi |'740«&0» wnloli 
was tlt« oot««hffr# sitod upon. Tho oheok of thi? sau h» L«miB 
Co. for tfl« otlMpr 80 per o*-nt of th« j>X«iiittff ♦b clai« w«8 
dttl/ 4«^llYor«c to tho pXaiatiff asd a coop tod 1»/ it and tbo 
flaintiff sii^od Xhm ooapositioa agrovAoat. 

la aririatf tlaat th« jud«ni4»&t of th» trial oourt bo 
roVAimoa, tiut p>l«iatiff first ecnt«Ba» tlaat tho d^rfoadant 
was porooaally lialilo to it for %h« sorviooit rend^rod th« 
iiM. 1<. JLovls CSo. uad r aad \»^ virtus of his oxooutioa ot tho 
«antraet iato vhldh ho «Qt«rod, as abovs dosorilio4. Oouasol 
for tho piaiatlff aakod tUo aef«adaBt oortaia aue'tioas vhilo 
ho vttO oa tho staind. tho off«ot of vhioh augr ho said to ho 
that tba soririoes oovorod hy tho hills la qaostioa war'?' r<»»» 
dorod to th« 9», L« J«owis CSe, undor th<» ooatraot slcEaoo hy 
i«vio as aa iadividual* l^'rsai all tho evidooos* hovovor, it 

'«» «« 9ii»*^ 

9m^m» el»air that euoh was net th«> «»Le«, The plRintiff r*n» 
<l»jr«d Mile to th« Vcisi* L, L«wl& CSo, fer t)Ficc ftctrvi^K r«ifi4eiw 
•4 ik»& «t t]^ tJie3« of the eon|i»o«iti«>ii tkn& th^^ trittii^itotiowi 
in eoan^etioa «ith it, it w&s ap;>«r«i3t %h».% $3cith«r tit* plaia* 
tiff nor Xh» dfffondiiBt aeasii r«(i th&i, th@ {i9f«n4%nt ««» 
Ilftt}!* f&T sttoh »erTlo«« und^r tli* <3«ntrn.ot 1»ut both of tJum 
tr«»t«d t)^ in4«'bt«»4xi9«»ft>r euedi eervioew a« tlto in<l#i9t«'Clcioto 
of th« '$li« !>• L«wis( Co, If thm plaintiff had r<!^r4«d ih* 
oontraotf to vhiflh tbs 4fftm%4»nt naa a p«tty« e^e an JkndiT* 
idual a» )>«ittx in foro« esnd aoTerixsi; t^««« ««rrl<3«a, it 
would e4*rtaiBly not liaTo ont^rttd into tho o<m;^OBltlon a«]*o«* 
aoQt for 20 par «»nt of the plaintiff* a alai« and 4«naB4o4 
the <i«fonaimt*a note for the Valanoo. It la twctmr «vi(&«nt 
that tha plaintiff at that tij(i»«< aid not 9uiiai<i<ir tho d«!>f«a4» 
aat liabl«> for ti^^vm oanri eoa uiidor th« oontraot. for. aooortU 
ing to th« <t«fon(£a{it*e tafitltBOflijr* tha |»laiatlff axpr^osl/ 
put th<» oeitaidl^ration of %h <Xt)f»n^titn%* v iiot*« not upeii tho 
oontraot. iniit apoa the |ilaiiitiff*» bAo&nlng a partjr to tha 
«fl)^p>o8itioii mtiT4t«n«n%, 

Tho plaintiff furth«r ot Bt«a<4e ttout e>'7m% tJjough tha 
oonBi<}«rr&tioa for th*» note waa boaad upon Ito oxaoutlon of 
the ooM^oftitioa agrott]a»«nt« ouoh oon«i deration wab a vsLlid 
oao ItMooueh no It did aot dlsslntoh t)»« aaaeta of tn» %a. 
1.. L««lo Co. in any imjr ana tlsua ^orlcod no harm upon the oth<i<r 
<Kroditoro of that mwpeai^. In «'jr oplaloa that faot «»a la** 
B^torlal* G^or* a oraditor ontaro into a oooMpacitioa agree* 
aiaat with othor oradltora and with th« dahtor* tharotqr a«raa« 
Ian to aooopt a &m^ r^tm oharo of tha luioato of tho dahtor 
la paymont of hia olalK aad at tha aaaa ti«« aaoratljr soouraa 
to hlttoolf ot«« advantaiEO oTor th« othor eritditoro, tha traaa- 

•etlon la fir»ttdul«ni, an4 wh^-y- th* ftdiTantiig« tlpta i»»aor«a 
^ i)i« «r*dilor 1» in tho farta ©f «t a(»t« fir th» b«Ll»no« ©f 
ti3« (»rcdlUr*6 olftia, #v«q tJaougk that not* b« tb«» not« ©f 
»ii«^ otlMr tlwm ih« d< btor* th« (sen^ig^rratian for t^ net* 
ie oonftia«r6(i frwiMiulecit nna tu^ <»r«<^lioir «ill not !>« ptir* 
mitUc to r<»cov«r in »» aetion l^reugl^t u]»ofi thfit r^oto* ThAt 
•uch ft trikii«ft«ition will maiifjr ih^ oon^ooitlon a«rtf«tft«at 
W0.« hold ky oiur @iapr«^» court 1« j^f^oir ▼• <^.iw^.^. 73 iil, gS6, 
To thi<f ooAO of foot «T« MTyAo^ft v, ^o)a.»»»4«m;»r. 10 l»d, Apfi* 
•** *«<* y»«k »f c?o«fft»rof V. ^ff¥oy . &t a«. Hop. 3Sli« In 
SoXioicor Y« litri» . a;^ M.X, 5$3« it wao h«Xd tli«t vh«r« nuali 
a no to «M glYoa aad latoir troaof orrod to a ^mn ^^fto holdojp 
V t)»« «r«ditor «»«i %la« miOcoir of t'no net* wao 0(3«i9«llft4 to 
yftjf lt» ho Qould otto thf? or«4itor ami r«>oov«r th« (uneumt ho 
hod paid* la that oao* tho oourt aaid, *lt tho ooa^ooltioa 
j^fQYiAao for a ppo r^ta paywi«nt to all th«? (»r«<tltorR, a aooroi 
a^roetoent, Igr^ a frli^nd of tm deflator andortakc^ to pa^ 
to ono of th« oroditero aaor^^ than );ile MS, £SiJk& 'Bih»T9, tc in* 
tfuoe hiai %& 'anito in ti!t# etmpvnitiont la a« natoh a fraua 
upon tha othor «]rodiitor« aa if th« atfrooaoat irao diroolljr 
Iwtvoea th» 4i»\t%oT and oucsn arf^ditor.* 

Xt 9»n ataico ao difforoaoa that tha givlag of tho 
aoto, j^arsuajftt to the ooorot •:frfi.m'^\m% , did net dlmlniah 
th« ao««t« of th« d-lstor. In Fre&i v, ii<sum , 3 AH«n (Maa»«) 
600, f» orediter who had oocui-»d t& »ecsr«t j^refaronoo* ffOuj;;h% 
to r<fooYor a divldaaA duo und«rr th« ooiapooltioa »nd the QO.^trt 
hold that tharo could Vo no r«<aov«ry, oa/in«» *Xt it qui to 
iMoatorial that thf** fundo to b« distributed araong ot)»ir 
orodltore ar«» not dimini^hr^ or rftnd«r*d looo aYailahla in 
cionooQuenae o'> tha aoorot agroaaiant* 7h« fraud eontisto. 

net in oatttsiutf aaiy injury to th«> ii«B«t« ot %ht 4«l»tor* ut 
in xmduQinM tiM «luur<» or ijAtt^r^st to wia etiti Xlm «3re41t«r» «!>• 
«aiitl«4 aft4«r tiMi sonpoeltl^i), Vut la tJbft «tt«W9t to iaduot 
tlum to «nter into an figr*«A«»t f«r ein •H«lftl diTi4«ii4 on 
%h»ir d«Vt» in iKOftrftaoHi of • j^rivAto V«rs*ia, wh«r«liiy » 
oroiiiter ie to r«<MiiT« «n ttd'Sitioiwl ohm to that to vhish 
ho m%^ hts «ntltlo«i in eo«aoii viUk oil tho orodltoro.*' In 
aiXnour V* ^hcwpoofi . 4t :<lov. ^r, 19S, tho £>l«tlntai^Jrf fil«l»tojr 
MkA« o ooKj^ooition witla hlo orodltoro. oao of «^»o» w{$» tho 
dofoH'.^nt. A» a ootsoio* mtlon for »nt#i'iils intc tiic oom* 
9N»ttltioii tho <s«f«na^>nt roqulrod %h» plAlnilff to glvo htn 
Mo no to for » otMi «ir*r iund mIdovo tho umount thi»t vko to w 
f>oli« uad^r xm 9capo»ltlon. Th# dof«n4«mt trftn8forr«<^ tho 
no to to ft thir4 poroon, to vhoon tho ^Inlatlff vao ebllco^ 
to po^ if. Tho s»lAiiitiff thf«n auotf th« dofon'i: nt to roeovor 
tkiff! own than paid V ^m And %He oourt h<f^l(i ho «i^» entltlo4 
to rffoevor, 

ia oupport of ito ooatotttlon tlttt ovon ^a %him 
thmvy t)s«ro who a valid 0G>nfti4«rAtlon for the (i«^fttn<lasit*» 
no to, tho plaintiff roitao on JjOI^oXI ▼. atato JSanfc of «aiiT*ft> 
XBG III* 5$. Ilv«i oaoo* howoTor* i« not in i^oiat for it 
appoara thero tliat tho aroditor in quootion refuood lo join 
vith th« othor oroditoro ia an arraogowoB'l wboro^ oertAia 
laada of th« dobter ««r«> to 1m tr»n»ferr<»4 to a true too Mid 
Xi<luidatod for tJto bonofit of all sr^^ditorOt sad ito pool* 
tiOB woo woli knowB to tho othor oroditora* la tfaat oaoa 
the igimmgonont vitorotgr tho proforrod er^^ditor ooeyurod ita 
i^rvforoaoa aaa trnkaowa to tho othar oroditoro, imt it appoar* 
•d tliat the oroditora who a^rood to aooapt the bono fits of 
a tjruot wer« not in aajr smmouto iaduood to do oo bjr rq/ 
thattgbt that thft prftfarrod or^rditor wao a. partjr to Um truat 

iirnuig«a«it «n th* ••»« b««l» a« all the «r<»4it«r«, TH* 
tourt «fti4 tluit th« «itiiatioA "wiiflit H»Tt 1»««n 4iff«r»i!tt 

full ma4 thitn, Q«»ii««iiliBg this f««t. in^ueed 6t)i«r er<94it- 
er« te joiB in iM« tirust •«ha»8«» for r prepo&»«d •qu«l or 
pro-r»t» 4iTi«ion« jhut ae «l«3Mfit of tlmt kind «nt«r«4 into 
tho oaso. i^p«llo» 414 tiftthinft mor« Mma tc lAwfulljr obt^la 
outoi4o ooeurity f*ir ihm bolnaov of ite 4«bt vithout ittJuLiy 
to th4» othor or«<litor« ftii4 tHi!«A, ot ttioir Bolloitation, <mii» 
ioro4 into turn tnnrintmmt to tiiko, ooIX mi4 4iotribttt« ]^:r^ r«ta 
th« property whloh thoot inrrditoro * * * ^4 urg«4 It to 
•tfimo to tifcko, * 

Vo ocreo trith ti»« |^lAiatiff*B Of9nt«ntlcm Ui«i>t It 
«&« insunbtMt ui})sn th« d«f«nai%nt to »jiOw in titls (»«• ihtit 
th« otlMMr or^tilt ro wwr^p *nii%jCM»<i» *t l^aot in pmrt* to ontor 
into tiaio ooH^ooltion ^ r^'Aiien of the fAOi tlmi thei ploin* 
tiff v«o « party to It on il»« «a»e bools witi^i then, Wt iro 
40 not d^^roo vith t)^ ooatontJLoii thmt t^ «vl4«noe wao total 1/ 
■ iXoat aa to vhotlwr thtt er«44toro of t^a '^* JU« JLovie 9o« 
ir«rr« »o iafli»onae4 oir whothtr or not tJaoy know that ttoo plain- 
tiff lia4 ontero4 into tho oon^ooltlos* only U{>«n rooelTliiK 
a t«>to fjrew tfe* <it>^feii4ant for t3a» balaaoo of it» alutlA, OYor 
an4 alMHre th«!> aoouitt It wao to reo«lT« uatwr the- o^apoBi* 
tioa* Th« ooMjpooitioa agraomoat 4uljr «x«out«4 b/ th« plain* 
tiff tegother witk the other er«4itcrt r oitos th»t tltajTi. 
"la o«?iif»i4«ratioii of th« ln«olTOiii«3r of th<( IM. L. Lovio Co, 
aa4 of pojmant to u» of twocit^ wt oont {20%) of th« aMOuat 
•f Our yoa|»«otiTO olalwo in oaah, 4e imrt>hy Jointly )aA4 oovor* 
all/ atsirtm wltiji th» aal4 Wa« I*. Lowia (So* and Itt offleora* 
aa4 mlth oaoh otlu»r an4 with all are4itora of o«i4 ooMpaqjr^ 

• 7. 

Visaing lilc«wiac oouAtwr^Mrt ttgrM»t4mi«« %hst% «« «lll« ^mi 
4e )»cir«\qr noMpt •f ana fren said liM, h» hmrisi Oe.» in 
full 9«gfiMiit, li^idntloii i^d di«Qltture« of our olaliB* aMjaiatt 
•«14 eoBMMkflgr* twenty j>££ <^ii. , ^ {ZC4) of th* laaouat ther«©f 
psjrabX* la aastu'* 7lt« d«f9n4aRt t«£<Ufl<^d that at th« tlm« 
«f Ms trana«otion »it)ri tli<f plaintiff* involTlng th« giYing 
•f hie nottt and th« pXaiatiff^e «i;j>i»««i«nt to br/ocme a partj^ 
to th« eoaapoaition* h« im4 **s«our«d all th^" t^^igaatiurea ^t 
tiia laeal or^dittfra*" Xa our opinion tM» made out at 
laaat a vTJmtt faajLa oaaa to tine «f fact th&t in watarlnc into 
th<^ ooskpoaitioa «f;r»«a«nt. at Iitaat soaaa olT th^^ looal or^fdi* 
tors ««'r« infXuenoftd ^y the f«L0t that all thn oth^r oreUitero* 
iaoludiag th<» plaintiff* v«»r« doing XlkowLsa. The ooatpoai* 
tion havlaff }»9vn iawlttttad. at l«?ast Xq »n:rt, ^ th« faot that 
all 9X9dixern inoludittg th« plaintiff tntrm hooosiag imrtios 
to its '^'^^ th» aet« la qu«!r?tioa asaounting to a saorat pra* 
f«raa«o to the «>lalatiff , w« &ra of tha opiaion th^t it vaa 
giToa for an invalid oonsidx^ratica mnd that tha plaintiff 
oaaaot ra«»T«r a^o-. it* 

For th« r aooas stated th« Ju4^€>tit of tha Munioipal 
Court is affinaad. 

/ \ 

Jon f, ^LC^i^rNBKl, minor l»y fihn 
lfX9n€Mjn9ki i.. hi.» next friendj 


Qtmmmms acMTAl^, k oofpo ration, 


^ X «-^ 

V,. r-- 

, ± ^ 

1IM« JUBtlii' THOttSOK d^llrtrft^ the epiaioti of %htt 


tiii» «ft8 « i»«r»eniil injury aotien tri«4 Wfor* • 
Jttfjr* rf'ffultliis in » v^r^iot for the plaintiff, fixing hi* 
(iMutgoo ftt fSOO* jly ttiif! «pp««l tb« d^f^ndant aooke to re* 
Torao the judisMont for that ainouiit. 

fli* dffftndant oos^lains of th<» oonduot of th« trial 
oourt during tho trial, e«rtain of the <seurt*» rulings on 
^ttootioao put to iftombore of the Jury, nnti *l«o oi otrtala 
rulini;* on the atfutionioa of ovid^nee ana on inetruotieno and 
%h« aotlOB of th# oourt in (i#nyinc ito notion for u nov trial 
«o 40 not 4o«a it noooooary to paao upon the lttit«r point 1)ut« 
no a now trial aniot %« had on oth«>r {^roundo, no ohall rofor 
to tho ttattoro of proooduro conrplainod of. 

A% th9 oponing of tho ttial and as eouaool woro 
'ftlwut to ooloot th* Jury, tho oourt announeod that he did 
•not yonat lawyers, to aak Jurors if thoy would bo will- 
iac to aoeeyt tvolvo m«n to ty the oaeo who would bo in 
tlM sane trmu) of mind that this Juror is in. The Juroro 
»••« not aaawor thiit sort of a tuootion and you nsy take 


^ ± 


• 2* 

y9iir •xa&pUGa," Ae «« iMtn pr«Ylously had oecanion to point 
•«* (fiSaia ▼• ChtOftKO fc Alton ijy. Co . 111. App. Flrot i4otrlot. 
So. 24173, cplnlon filoii JiAljr 16, 1919 • not yot ro^iortotf) that 
is a porfootl^r^ paoper tubjiiot of inquiry in oelooting o Juxy 
proTldod Xhts qttootion patting it, in oorreotly worried. In tho 
wuroc of tho ffxauaination of the* jury in th«» ea«« at Var eoun* 
»ol for d«»f«n4«nt «okO(t a juror, i*If you wibtp th^ <i<»fendnnt in 
thla ouit would you b« willing to havo a oan In your pr«'e«Fnt 
framo of nind alt aa a juror in this eaoe and paa» u>*a tho 
iaouoaf* That olwlously is an iaporpor quoetion* Tho juror 
might bo itrongly projudieod in favor of the d«f«f«nd8nt for 
oomo r«aooB« aaci la that ovont hit anovor vouid of ooureo 
Vo in th« affirauitiTO, and thoroforo oatiafaoto ry to couneol 
for the defendant and yet ho i»«uld he the kinu of a juror who 
ahould not oit is the oa^iO. On the other hand a quecitioa 
worded aa the quoatioa waa in th(* c«se eitod, is entirely 
proper, a»d oo.;aeel ahouLd be p omit tod to put it and tho 
juror require^ to anove^r it. Th^re tho quaetion was aa fol* 
Xewo: "If you were la my plaoe, reproaonting the railroad 
•OBkpaqy, and you wanted to ^et twelve fair ninded sen to try 
tho ioouee, would you take a man mho is in the frame of aiad 
you are in now, on a Jury to try the ioouee in a eaae of this 

Aoother quootion put to one of tho jurors in tho 
oaaa at bar was the following, "Do you think that rogardlooo 
•f the faei that plaintiff ie a tey < f oixtoea ana defendant 
a oorporatica. you woald require hi^^ to aake the oame proof 
aa to liability for tho aeoideat aa you would if he were a 
grown aanT" It would haw* been quite proper to ask the juror 
if ha oo^^ild be as fair, unbiased and iagiartial in deciding 
this oasa as Jho oo^d bo if the plaintiff were a grown aan« 



•r »Mft«tldim to that •ff«>ot« 1»ut in our o^^inioa th« ^tt*ti» 
tion i^ttt, »« KbOT* qu«t«d, iif«» ol>J«etloiuilil». It would ¥• 
<}uit« lik«ly ihRt n Juror would got tlio Imprtn^ision ot tho 
ontoot of th« trial, fro» »u(^ & quootion, that tbn pl«i»> 
tiff o»o roquirod to aaico tho ooao olutwin^^ as to th« «x«r* 
oloo of «Rro en iiim port «• ho wouX4 if ho V'X^ am adult* 
altliougk toolmi cully ond etrietly* tto« quoetlon night not 
lioar tlwt intorprotation. 

TloMi oourt ftloo rofuood to rIXow th« juroro to onovor 
tho folloving Quosticn: *£» you uacl^rotand what is aoiuit by 
9ro9«»4«ranoo or g;r<^ftt«r troight of th« 0Yl<l«neo?** That is 
a fivpcr <|ttootio« aad tho oeurt'e rulixts upon it was not ooiw 
root. Wliilo « Juror nay not 'bo roiiuired to have a knowlode* 
of teohniool logal tovma, 1m should be ablo to undorotand 
ilw Knelioh languiMso and wa^ ploJla tomo aa arc »ot with in 
tho trial of ovory oaoo, 

On Soptombor 7, 1917 • tSao plaistiff wao cresoiim 
Mth otr««t in tho ait/ of Chi flag* • on %}» voot side of f^otmrnr* 
oial avotiuo. It wao rainiBn bard. Urn wac oarrytiic his oittor* 
a ohild of eix or ooYon yoarOf on hio loft am. 7h^ ir«ro 
botb aovorod by a raia ooat aad ho wao aloo oarrying an ua* 
liroUa. Aa tlM^ woro proaaodinc aarooa SSth etroot and appar* 
tatly aftor thojr had paaaod th« sniddlo lino of that etroet, 
tho/ wer*^ otrtiflile and iuadiod do«B by « toaa drawinc a vagoa. 
thmilf fall bc-twoon the horooo and. aftor tho «««;ob had paaood, 
a vWMMi who v«^o OB tho oeraor at tho tlrno, pi(Aod up tho 
litilo girl and oarriod hor bono, and tho plaintiff got up 
aad want to thoir hamm, whioh wao noar by, hlmoolf. wo 
gatlMir from tho rooord thot tho girl was not iojurod but tho 
plaintiff had boon otmdk on ob<? of hio logs and roool-r«d 


the inJiiiT her* mu«i upon. Th« wiNSOn wms 4«tt«rlb*d «« a 
/•Xlo«. «■«•«• Willi hiiKh eid«s Wt iM top ftnd it »*ti oOY^red 
•▼«r with a ooinTaa tnrpaalin. Thnm wui t«»iia»n]r for th« 
plaintiff to th« ttffoet that tte d«fftBd«uit*« name app«nr»4 
on the «a«;on, one ifitne»» t«atifyiB|c that ho aaw th» vorda 
"OonauMara Xe« Oaapaiqr* on it. Tho follovins day he ^ac 
eallod to th« at»nd and h« th«n t<^etlfi«<i that tho nataa 
en th« wagon was ^'Conaunors Oeatptyngr*. Th« KFagea had aena 
froa tha oouth aloas Coraaaroiiil avenuo and turnad waot into 
08th atroet «h«n it otrude the plaintiff, tim accident 
• Qoofvu at 11:30 A.M* aa th« plaintiff vaa oarxyinc hio 
aiotar hono frou a. nai^hboria^ paraolilal oehoaX. 

In addition to a ploa of the ganoral isouo, tha 
daf^nOant filad a ploa of aon»aimarohip and tha ^fialn ^ueBtioa 
ioYolTod in th«^ eaao vaa vhathor the wagon in qaostion «aa 
in faet on« of th» defendant's or h«los8ad t'«^ othara, at 
dofandant «lai»od, 

Tha plaint iff *ii do<d.aratio]i* ao originalljK fiX^d, 
oenaiatad of thrao oounta. This firot ohat^ad gonoral irMtXl** 
ganoa* 7h«> aaoond aXlagad tha ▼iolatien of a oity ordinanoa« 
pro hiM tine driving streund a oomar at a apaod graator than 
faur ailao an hoar. ¥ha third all aged t^t tha naij^hherhood 
in fiucatioa was thii^Xy popalatad* and ohargad that dafaad* 
ant had fail ad to giro way notiea or vamlng of tha appreaah 
of tha wagon. Diuring the trial tho court p«r»itted plain* 
tiff to flla an additional oount rooiting tha Tiolation of 
a aitgr ordiiumoo raquiring tht drirer of a vahiela to giTo 
a aiipaal hy raiaing his hand in rounding a corner. Yhio ao» 
tion of tha oourt io aloo ooaplainad of. Ao the appliention 
to file thia additional oount vaa not aupported hy any s>ioai» 


• 5* 

tug ef dllig«no« and no «x9ua« wmti glT«n for thu d«ltkjr in 
filing it, th9 appXiofttloa might veil ttare >(»<m <l#ni«4l, Intt 
•R the other h«nd w do not oonnidc'r tfm exerois* of tb<» 
o»uLrt*« di8«r«tioii, in penoittins the plaintiff to fxl« it, 
fts error. u«rt«inljr th« d#feiid»nt'«i def«(Rft« oould not )»▼• !»••» 
pr«judie«d Igr the filing of thle ^dditicnfti oount. 

iiurina th« eros«<»«auu»in&tion of the plaintiff, ooua««I 
for d«fend«nt aoked hi«« *3fottr r#ooll«otion of what th« ««eon 
«»■, iB larg*!/ baood es your «x«miBAtiOB iMde over in th« 
(3*m»vamnt9* yardt* That quoetion h«tter haTo ho«n put in 
tho fern ttf a quoetion and mh a statooient* bat it was not 
argttM«nt«tivo as otatod hy th« oeuri in auataiaing plaintiff** 
•hjeotioa to it. it vao a proper «tibjoot ef oroao^oxaadaa* 
tioa. Tho plaiatiff «a« oovored up with a rain oeat and aa 
umbrella at th« tin* of the aooidont. The wajgon itaolf was 
eoTorod Iqt a aanwaa eoYwring* thrown ov^r it. and it was 
aoYiag rabidly. Sororal days lator the plaintiff and hi* 
methar had visited th» defendant* e yard and exaainod it» wagoao. 
Tho plaintiff had net previously aasvored th« question, as his 
oeunsel oontends. When the question wae first asked, oounsei 
fer defendant added aaether qut^etion to it, naciely, 'You leelced 
it over oarefully dida*t youT* The plaintiff said he had, and 
th<»a the question referrf^d to was repeated ana the plaintiff 
answered, *Xt i* the sawe wagon*. Coun»««l for defendant then 
said, "Anewer the queetioa." aad again repeated it ia substance, 
whrreupoa the eourt rulad it out aa argwaentative although no 
objection had been interposed by the plaintiff. 

One of the plaintiff* b witn«esr8 who had given test!* 
aaay about the ntmw on the wa^^on that struadt the plaintiff, to 
whleh we have referred, testified that we tnji l^lish. m gave 


his nuMl «• HXb^p, Cn <iros8»«txftisi.nfttleii hf> mnn acKk^ct if 
Bivhof ma « l?«li«h muii*. So obj«stioa ^7a» interpot d to 
th« ^uattien Wt tlie oourt a«i<i it BUikd« no dlf reronc* vh«th9r 
Mm namB «•• "Joiwe, SbMithf Bishop or Bishopttiqr or Anything 
•Xti«,* »ii4 ruLMI it out« Th« (ittoetion Wbo proper, it «•« 
otPIMir^atljr a pjrelifaimiry question snd taight h«tvo led to « 
lin* of inquiry iou«fein« th« or«4ibiiit^ of tho vitnoso. 

From offidftTito |>r#oontod to the oourt in oupport 
of tho motion for a now trial, ii «i'pp6«T0, tttat dofoadont** 
iirr(i^eti|(*tor h»d xukde oomo f if toon tripo into th» Tioinity 
•f this oooident in ooaroh of ivitn<»o»«>o «aa its dofenoo had 
boon pr^^jrarod with Ott<fl» witnoeooe «• had l»eon found. At tho 
elOKO of th# first day of the trial, the invf^etlgator Oarioon, 
took two boys, who w^re witnoeoeo, homo, and in t&llclng with 
tho ttoth^r of ono of th«», ho X«mrn«A of others who mieht 
know about tho aocfildt!»nt oad in following up this infomation 
ho found ono wyrohok. Aft«r talking with him iw servwd him 
with fi euto|M>ona, and th« following oioming h« was a witneoo 
at tho triaX* Ho tostifiod ho had lioon a toawottr on an 
oxpr«oo wogon an<i on bottlo httr wagono,* *Th«n 1 workod on an 
loo wagon for Chrio Chirbobba** Ho was aok«d whnthor ho was 
driving a wagon in Chioogo o« or about ^optombor 7, 1917 » 
and ho anowert^, *1 oouldn*t Juot oay if it woe that doto 
•r not* but I haTo boon driving for Chris Chirbobba at that 
tiao«* Ho tostifiod further that ho was driving a yollow 
oiKproos wagon, *with otakos tvp that otand about fivo foot 
Irtgta*; that ho had two ho rows, a bay and a oorrol; that ho 
did*nt ro»MMibor tho data; that *I ha von* t no aoeidmt at all 
only Juot that llttlo kid foil upon mo, in front of aio when 
1 pttllod fro» ««thto we8tt)f88th otroot to Kseanaba.** Without 




mny^ •^Jeotion >i«lac lutcr^oatd th« •oart •rder«d thia tesiJU 
»oay »trlek«>n out be<»ttefi h* eeuld n»t *••« ani^ ooan«dtlon«* 
0«uBa«l for dof «>£idJ4At *«eiur««i th€ oourt tlnAt ho i»>euld oonr.oot 
ilM tootlNOiiy itPii^nd he proaoodod to aak tinethor <|ttostioa 
oad tho 00 art intorruptod hin and rofuood to lot hla yrooood* 
Tho witnooft thon tootlflod that ho imov th« plttintifti that 
ho orno haulinc oomo borrolo of »jm.ftkojrj that h« droTO o«st on 
9tnd otroot, oftBO to Ooionioroiitl aYonuo, "and thc's thnt vso 
voot around th« oornor to BBth and north, ano north of eath, 
I woo eolniS vost, «n<i thore wao a bundi of l.ittl« kids eoalng 
out of eiuireh b«two<»n oloiron and twolTo o*olo^, that 4mj 
and X wifnam my i^aai aoming in off voot to 38th and Iteaanaha 
mrmnnm, and tho klA oaao with an mhroila * * • it was irain* 
ins * » » and X hoilorod at the kid. raid that tino I mmas 
tho toaa OTor off of 88th north, and th« kid foXl Juet bo» 
oido of sy taaai, ami i droTo avay about a bio ok and o^ao 
Haok to aoo if that kid wao hart » » • and h« naan*t there, « 
Bo fnrthor toatified that ho had a taryanlia over hia vacon; 
that he dida*t know vho %im bey ««•• m wao than aekod if 
it waa tho plaintiff and ho anawered. "Whsf, I oouldnU aajr 
iMv,* and lator ho anav«red, "Ho aia*t %h0 boy at that tisio.* 
ThiB th« oeurt atruiA out although no objootioa had boon in* 
torpoaod and tho oourt th«r. naked hia if tho plaintiff vaa thi 
bajr that foil in front of his toam and ho anawored. ^Whjr. J 
oouldn*t aoo tho bay* a faoo boimuso ho haa an unbrolla OTor 
him*; ho aaid ho eould not aoc who t her ho naa oarzying any* 
body in Hia araia booauaa of tho uabrolla; that it vaa botwooa 
alavaa and tvolTO o*olodc on a rainy day; that h« eould not 
CiTO tho data or tho month; that it woa in tho vintor. Thore* 
upon tho oourt aaid (no ob^oetion harin^ bf^on intorpoaod by 
plaintiff) •Striko it all out." Oounaol for defendant aaid 

h« would eonn«et up tH« tftistliBongr of tht» witactti with 
another vitnooo. Th^ court OAid, *■• you omniDdt.'* 
Counael for d«f«nd»at off^r«fl to ekow tlmt iimtdiattly 
lUrter th« «e<^di««nt th« vitnoo* had taotlfiftd aliout, ho had 
told anoUior atwut it (the other wltnooo r<rforred to) and 
ho told th«> oouxt this witaooa would ai«o oorrehorato 
Ijrrohoh aa to hlo noYoaoato on tho* daj^ in quooiion. Xa 
iootifyias ahout th« bojr laTolvod in th« &ooidont ho «ao 
dooerihing, <9yroh«k roferrod to kiim aa <*th« littlo follow*, 
whrrotti^on tho oourt aoked hlA how tall ho «ao and ho in* 
dioatod ahO'Jt four and a half or flTO foot. The oourt 
thoa aakod hew old th« hoy waa and tho witaooo aaawarod* 
*Six or ooroa y«ar«, X gutcnn,* «hor«ii|»(»a tho oourt aaid* 
without ohjootion to tho «Tideno« holn^ asado on tho pari 
of tho plaintiff, *Btrik(» it all out,* all Ib otriekon 
out,* you will pay no attontlon to it«" la tor the oxamiaa* 
tion of the wltneoa roeurrod to tho tino of the aooidont tho 
«itn«a» h&d d«Borilrod aad tho oourt aakod, *You oaid it vaa 
vlntftrf* and tho witao«« aao\rerod, *Woll, it wao a kind of 
elipitory dajr,* it waa rainin«.* tho oourt then aoked hla 
if it wat snowing and ho oaid ae it wgls raining and froson. 
Aftor OfMM furthor ctueetioning the oourt t&ld, *l don*t aoo 
tho aooooalty of opondiag tiao upon thio, hooaiwo it io all 
etriokon out o » » there io no c^nnoction ohoim botwoon thlo 
auaa*o otatomoat and this ao old on t,* |}of»ndont eontondod that 
thore waa eoao oonn«etion hut the oourt oaid, **Xt i« all 
otri4ic«o out.* Oounsol for dofoadaat th«n said, **X went ta 
■Mko thio offer to proTO that the naa •,* wh^r^upoa tho oourt 
latorraptod and oaid, "80, I won't lot /ou m»k^f any offer 
to prove anythiag. ^ou have aehed your <ia»stioae aad X havo 
hoard thenu If you ha to an^ further ^uootions, aek thorn.* 

0»un»«l Again «d<ir«cA«4 th« eourt %nd said, **V11I your 
Honor «llo« m* *," A^ain tim oourt intejrrupted Kaylng. 
*X 6Uia*t want any off»r iaad**" Oouneel th«n aBk«<d if h« 
«a0 tv underttand that tb» oourt had strloken out all 
th« evideno«» and tiie oourt said, "i liaTa,- •▼•ry bit of it.* 
KxQf>?tion wns <3uly noted b^ th« defendant* to «!)11 the 
rulings rwferrffd to. We are c©nfid»nt that no authority 
will bo found oontrary to tho ropeated holdings of thia 
oourt tc iho «ff«ot that 0Dunfi«»l haro thf; right to mako 
an off«r Of proof for th«» t«o»fold pwrpo»e of informing 
th« oourt vhftt in expooted to be proved and of preeerring 
an o^et^ptioa to the oxolu anion of tho off red OYidence, 
6ftffi«ad ▼. CQOtt . 33 111, Apj>, 317; fjook T. JgHfiHE* 
61 111, App, 8fi»; ?id*lity anu Oaoualt^ 00 . y, ^oiso . 80 
III. App, 499. In Maxwoll T. jiateol . 9^ ill. App. &1&, tho 
refusal of th« oourt to allo«r oouna<9i to state what ho 
txpeotod to prove lay a witneeo, was held to be error* 
"beeauoe wo are unable to tell frotn anything in the reeord 
but that the propoaed evid^mce of the witneoe WH>e both 
caapetant end matarial, and we are unabl* to peroeiva how 
the trial judge eould dataroinc that master any better thus 
we a»n** 

Vhilf" the faat that thie witneas had only beaa 
found the night previous to the day on whidh he testified 
and had therefore not had an opi^/ortunlty to refreah hi a 
reeelleotioa« nay not hava been a proper ground for a new 
trial, we deea it :^ropsr for this oourt to examine the 
affidavits ia the reoord whi <3h werr filed in support of 
thet e»}tion, from whi c^ the f/iOta wl\ioh oounael was try* 
ing to bring out by this witaeaa, appear, Frosa then* 


affidarits it «9P««ra that this wliniraa «•• angased to haul 
aavaral bajrr«I» of ^Malqr, upon tha oooaalos about whieh bt 
t«atifl«d, from 3065 K. 92ad atrat^t t» a aalooB at tJba a»m«r 
•f BaaanalM aTaau* and 88tb street; that h« dlti that wax^ 
vith a yeXlaw, Atakad axi»r«»a« va«oa pund tvo harseat that ha 
laad«4 tha harrels at about elaren «*a3.o«d( in th«» morning 
and shortly thRr«!>after he drove north in Caanarelal aT««Ma 
ia 88th street «h*>re he tujraed vaat to iSaMmaha avenue; 
that h«> cnj«e aorosiA a hoy at COBsneroial avenue nn^ 38th 
etroei oarryiag aa uahrelia oloaeXy over his head, hiding 
hi a head froia viev; that the hoy ima going a«ra«s 88 th 
etreet fren the north to the south; that the driver swung 
his taaa to the north; and the hoy fell south of the toast 
and the wagon ]^aased to the north of wh*r^ he fell; that 
the streets were wot ana slippery; that the wagon was ooT* 
ored with a tari^ulia and th« driver va« voaring a eay 
pulled dovn over his eyas to protect Mm frc»a the rain; 
tlut the wagon was letter«<i, ** Christ -^hudohha* Furniture 
& Piano ^vinga* that after i^aaaittg the oomor in Question, 
the witness ii»rooeeded aboat a hledk, where he met one l)ank«rt« 
(an eaplayaa of the sailer of the whisky referred to) who 
iMiled hin; that h« preee< ded to hie destination and then 
returned on foot to th« oomor in question hut the boy had 

If oottftoel had been ponsitted to nake thia offer 
aa he should have been, we arv of the er>lnion that the 
evid^noe referred to should have been held to be oosvotont 
and its weight ahould havo be«>n left to the jury. If was 
for the Jury to aay what offset ahould be given to the stato* 
Meats of th<" witaoas to whidh %hr^ eourt saean to havo tak«i 

nx wf-^-Tf^^ #«<rjur» 

i?sJ;<i • 


exception and «ltoth«r th<Qy dleoredited the witnffse or w«r« 
to b« exfflaitK^d (ee far ae Xhr- tii»« of th« eo^mriend* «a» 
Ovino«rn«d) l»jr th« fact %fml it had h»pp«»nff4 tvo yemr« pr«i* 
TiouBly «n«i th« wiinffs heid had n& oo'msicn to think of tte« 
oecurrcaoe «lnoc and (eo fitr Aft tite iciientity of th« Wy was 
ocnor^riHRd) by th« f««t that th» b«y was oaverad by an u»» 
brt>Ila and tha uritnaaa** oap pr«*Tanted a q1o6« obaervation 
en M* part, Th* reoor^i cUeolo»«« th© further faot, whioh 
inks Rubaittad In aapport of tha motion for a nctw trial an 
nairly dlsi oot '•rad ^irld'man, th«t fitter tJiiu wltnaae had 
tAetified, «n lnT#»tigatloa of this aale and «l?'livery of 
whlaky had diaoloead ih«r inToi^?* and th&«. It wan dai«4 
*Sapt«mb«r f, 1917," vrMoh is th« data of th«f aoeid<!^t in 

7ha dafandtoit put D^nkert on th6< utiind ae a witneos 
in oorroboratA^A of Wyrobak but th? oourt k«ept out .aoet of 
th« t«ftiAiOiiy h« tried to giva; on th? ground that all the 
teetioo^y of i^^yrobak h^d be«n etrieken out and th<? witness 
•aid ha h^^^d not witnaaaad th«» alle^ged aoeiii<nt. Htm beeausa 
he oould not gire the e»sct data of the delivery by ^rebeka 
although he sai<i it was on a rainy day and about 11:3C A.M. 
aacL that It was "about the 7th of September, * » » beonuso 
it was rirht after oehool etartPd," 

Ciret2B«tontial evidenws is entitled to du« con» 
ftlderatioa just ae dirnot erid^noe is. Certainly it should 
not be rul«»d out as iaooapetent on tlif^ ground VuA it does 
not oorr9e?ond in every detail ^ith th« other evidenoc in 
the oaee. The faot that k. vitnes:; giT^n testimony whi ah 
does not oerreopond in every respect with oth«r teetlciony 

•r with «teitt«d f«ai» 9t mmyn. he (Munnot t^ittt th«^ aacAet 
dmt« of anotcarrAno^i ebout whieli lie has Imil ao vooaftioa 
te thlidE or talk for two /viurs, 1b a aartc of th« truth 
of his t«etiBeH3r tathor tbaa th« coatmzy. 

OOKpi&int Is fluuio of otrtain inotruotioni. it 
1b QontenAeti th«t the oourt erred in ins tru otliMs the Jury 
that* "Tho pli&latiff !» not iMund to pntr^ hisi e«ee beyond 
o raaoonablo deuM but Is only %ound to prove It by o prt» 
p9ndf^r»n<i« of the evidenoe. ** That instruotloa «nio projper. 
Ae to complaint nadie by the d«fond«nt of th« oourt' e ruliaga 
in Modifying an inRtruotion and in refusing oertaiti others* 
our oplBiOB io th»t ther(<> «ao ae error, Tim «ttbjeet«»akatt*r 
tf the refuaed Inetruetlone ae well as thj».t of the jpart of 
tlie Modified lastruotlon* whl<ih tJ^e court struck outt v^* 
eufflolently eorered by the laetxuotions inhloh the (^urt gava. 

Zt would be inpoeelble within the liralte of thlo 
ofilaitfa to dia<mee fully th^ condaot of the trial oourt of 
which defendant oeaiplaina. Of course* aa th# plaintiff 
argute In his brief « every unguarded ox^^reselon of the oourt 
cannot be treated as error requiring a rorersal. But a ears* 
fal exaatlnation of the record in thle aaf« dlsdLoees the fact 
that the trial court rej»aatedly broke into the ex»mlaatioB 
of defendftnt*s vitnesses ana out opanoel off frcaa a proper 
line of inquiry, often addr<^s«ing remarks or questions to 
the vitness or coiussel which oould not have been latorpret* 
•d by tlte Jury In aay other way than as a olear ladloatioa 
that the oourt wss of the opinion that the witn«!»e wee not 
to hfc bellevftd or that the defense which the defcfnd&nt was 
eadeavoring to establish wna not to be credited or evc'n oea* 
sidf^red seriously. Repeatedly the oourt took witnesses la 

• 13» 

iHina and eon<iuot«d a lonta eross •xaialRatioQ of thi'm hln* 
e«lf. At on9 point h« »«lc<»a qu* &tion» of one of d^ft-nA^ 
©nt*8 •t»5)loy«*» incLL «mtliig that h« sttron^l^ tuupeciftd that 
d«f«nd&iit night i)av« done oc^mtMn^ to cono«Al th«^ idMstitjr 
of the vtt^on vhioh plaintiff olwiaed vaa th^> one nhioh hn& 
TWR OT»r hin, Th^ reiasirlco of th^ court in oonnoetion with 
th« toetlmony of a nuualoor of th@ vitn<»8ft<^6 «>»«! such at to 
indi«fito to t3a« Juigr tttint th« oourt aoitJaer boliered the 
iKitneofi nor nttrtoh«<t «ny yaIuo or wole^ht to hio tef>ti« 

'^« hafe Mlrtmuj- r«»ferreci to tosie of lU'-*'* ln» 
stano<;»* #hil<^ th« yotrd ouixftrintoncitnt w&e oa ihc' stand 
he tOBtified that, th<» only 'wsgoa of tljt' dfcfendfAnt in the 
yard aoiureot t© th« ooene of the aoeldi^nt, of th^ type 
which was involTttd here, J^ad not 1»o«n oat of \.h*- >)ard on the 
day in <|u«^0tiOB until aft«r one o'clock in Xlm afternoom 
He w&a then ^ked what CJalle4 thai f&et to Me mind ana he 
anevered that it was "tm fact that are had iafuiriee two 
or three days after tAie^* eome person oaiae ever to the 
of floe and said thst tn«y thought one of our wajiions >»d 
hart soaebody." Here the court reoaariced, *Well« what has : 
that got to do with youur raa&embering two or three days bs» 
fore that, at a particular hifeur it was in your yard¥* ^st 
of the following half doa«n pages of the reooro oonsists of 
a s})arp oross*exaiBi.n«tion of this witaees by the ooart that 
indioatsd that his opinion was that th« witness did not knew 
what he was talkini; t^Uout* Xher** w r*? a nu««#»J of other 
sistilar inetano«is. That such re^tiixlrs »a«>t have influenced 

ths minds of the Ju«y, and that being true, cone ti tuts 
ground for reversal, has been repeatedly pointed out by our 
Sajpre^ Court. I)eBhler ▼. flegra , 3£ 111. 368; Andreas y. 


i ^«%eh«m . 77 111. 877} ». .R.R. Y. »Xl4M«i . 12fi 111. 4«1. 
&U0I1 Iv. the Ota* •▼•a %h0 4«h it ma^f b« oea««d«d that thf rt 
sMky haT* be«a aom« bacim for the oourt*« oplnioae and rvaarks • 
C. C. Ry. 00, T. iBaroth . US 1 JU. App. 29*; O.C air. Co. v. 
»all . 93 111. App. 411. 

ielaintiff J»ak«8 th« point that 4nfmn&(unt oaonot 
•Mipiain of th? <toiidu<rt of th« oourt l»«o«ttB« It intarpoevd 
nonobjootloa te it. v« fin4 th« reoord aboniriff ntuMrous «3e» 
oaptiona noted bjr tha def^nds^nt to the action of tb^ oourt. 
Manjr of the queetioae and r<nsarka raferrod to v«re put or 
■ad* in th* aeuroe of a running fXre and Mrosis fira batvaaa 
tlic eourt. th« vitnaaa and oeunaol. te hava put in objeotioas 
and axoaptioaa to all tlMo* ^t^^otioaa and raiaavlca and te tha 
ooaduat of tha court, vouid havo plaoad oouaaal for d«fea4» 
aatf in thft ayoo of th« jur3r« in an aTOia nort vaibamuiaiag 
li^fat than ha doubtleao waa hy raaaon of tha oourt*a atti* 
tuda. Ae TOO aaid 1^ our Si^prmax C^urt in O'Shafj i T. gtoola . 
aiS 111. 358 • whara a atoilar aituatioa was pr^aantad.** th«; 
law gaaraataaa tha defandant a fair «ad inpaii;ial trial. 
the Muraa parauad Ity tho prc^aiding jud^a amounted to a danial 
of t)4is right." 

tha 4udff£i«nt of the Suparior Ccurt i» r<«veraad aad 
tha oauoa ia rattamdad to tha Superior Oourt for a nev trial, 

lAlfLCK, P.J. AHiJ O'COiOJOlt, J..Ct.KCim, 

337 • 25316 





<m QKLOkOO, 

2191.^' 641 

MR. JmiKm fmm&QM 4«Uver«d the opinion of 

tte «ourt« 

Th* plaintiff* Wats, brought this action to recoT«r 
dUMgigM oooaoionod by the failure of the d^fendaiit, Alport • 
to earvy out the protrieions of a oontraot in vritiag undor 
the tersM of vhioh Wats agreed to buy 9,000 "Rueeian Houbloo, 
Ourrenour ]?ro-war iaeuo** for I&50.00* The plaintiff paid the 
defendant $100. CO en the purchase prioo when th^ oontraot 
tme exooutod a^d it «ao proTlded that the defendant was to 
deliver the roubles en Juno 1« 1918* at vhi^i time the plain* 
tiff vas to pay the balaaoe of '^A^O^CO, The defendant filed 
an sacndod affidarit of merits in which the execution of the 
eoatraot wae adoitted. The affidavit further eot forth that 
"at the time the oontraot was entered into it was the inten* 
tion of the parties thereto to procure the Xussian Roubles 
mentioned in oaid oontraot in the J^apire of Japan* and for 
that purpose it wao agreed by the partiee that the defendant 
should » » * Journey # » » to %h» Bnpiro of Japan for the 
purpooo of purehasing the Ruseian Moubles ealled for in said 
oontraot** S thai it wao agreed between the partiee that the 
rubles ehould be purchased in JsMpaa and delivered by the do* 
fondant and aoeepted by the plaintiff under the termo of 

th« oontmot, "and no 110 ttther*; that therffaftttr th« ^.•fimim 
ant want to Japan and poroteaed an amount of roablee suffi- 
ol«nt to deliT«r to th« plaintiff those mentioned in the 
oontract; that th«r aftar ^on or about Juno 1, 1918** the 
defendant returned to thie; country and a >plied to tho yedet^- 
al Beaerra Board for pmrmlsgion to import thr rubles but was 
a4viaad that an tabargA had been plaoed upon the import of 
R«08lan RoubXtta and that hla application to iaport thooe he 
had purohased vaa for the time being refused. The affidavit 
further set forth the proTinione of the aet of Sengrees en* 
titled *An Aot to XHsfine, Hegulate and Punish Trading with 
the Xneagr* and for other Purposee!** under which eaid «nbar8» 
was declared. It also set forth thnt at th« tine the con* 
traet in question was entered intOt the Federal Law did net 
require a llo^nse to in^ort Russian Roubles and alleged that 
at that time the parties did t»t t»iro such an e-vent in oon* 
taaplation and did not know that suoh a lioeava would be re> 
quired to import said roubles, but that the embargo was de« 
elared subsequently end while the defendant was in Japan. 

This affid&Tit of aerits was stricken on motion of 
the plaintiff and the defendant was defaulted for want of a 
suffieient affidavit of merits. A jury was then sworn to 
to s^sesfi the plaintiff* s d«aageB» which were fixed at $300 
and Judginent for the plaintiff was entered for that aacunt* 
from whioh the defendant has perfected this appeal. 

In our opinion the aXfida-vlt of merits was properly 
ntridcen. The defendant oould not be permitted to show, in 
defense of this aetion» that at the tine this eo||traet was 
exeeutod the parties agreed that it m&m to apply to Russian 
Koubles purchased in Japan and x» other. It was not set uy 

'41 A VitMV 

in the affidavit tliat th« parti«» iMd any additional agr*** 
mint in writing. Tba written adntraot, »«t forth in the 
atataaent af olaia. th« execution of whioli waa adaitted, 
ntat be preeuiaedi tc include all the proTl alone ef the agree* 
»ent into whioh th<*»e parti (^e entered. Bu| ; y , e,rB, Index Jg'ub. po , 
▼. Aaer« Shoe Polieh Co .. 169 111. App. 618. There is no in* 
probability nor uno<«rtainty about any ef the terma of the 
eeatraet. It hnd to do with the purohaae and siat of Ruaeian 
Keubles without any mention ae to where they were to be pro* 
eured. The defendant oould not be permitted to shew that h* 
had an under standiiiit or an oral agreement «rlth the plaintiff 
that the eontraet had to do aolaly with the roubles that ha 
wae to purohaae in 3a9mn, The eontraet w&a in writing and 
under ■•*! and eucds an exeoutory oontraot oannet b» altered, 
changed or nodi f led by any p^rol agreement* /»lgohuler t« 
achiff . 164 111, 298; locky ▼. Jiarion, 269 111. 342. 

Tlie defendant oonplaina of certain inetructioaa 
giTon to the jury on the queeticn of dajcsagea. caa iaatruotioii 
told the jury that it waa not necaaeary for the plaintiff to 
purehaee the ajBaeuRt of roubles contracted for, ia the open 
aarket. oa defendant* e failure to perform* but that the reault 
V«&^ the tame aa if the plaintiff had bought a like quantity 
•f roublec in the fmrket. That iaetruotion mia oorreet. The 
other iaetruetioa complained of told the jury that the meaaure 
of daauftgee waa "the differeaee, if any, between the market prloa* 
of the Buaaiaa Roubles covered by the ooatraet price and the 
"eoa tract price at the time the aaae should have been delivered, 
and in ad<itiOB thereto the one hundred dollars paid by the plaia« 
tiff to the deff^ndant.** That instruction waa alee correct. 

It le further urged tliet error was oomoaitted in the 



ass«»«m«nt of dauMged at #300, Whll« it Ita tru« that it 
appaara trvm the aviaenea that the Kusaian Koublas rfvt 
had what might he aall«d a maricet Talua, it is Rhevn that 
they wre auhject ta purohai.^^ and aala in the open raarkat 
on Juna 1. 19X8 and b«for« and aftojr that dato. PreounaUjr 
the Juroro* verdiot included the 4100 vhieh the plaintiff 
Itod paid the dafondaitt on the purchaaio price of th<? roubles 
oOTored h/ tho oentraot, and fixad $200 aa the difforenee hetwcvm 
the oontraot prieo and vhat the iury heliered frea the eridenoo 
it would haTO ooat the plaintiff if he had gone into tho warkot 
on JTuao 1, 1918 and jj^rohaaed tha 5,000 roubles. That differ* 
onoa of 1800.00 was baoed on a priee of I15.00 a hundred. 
A aunber of witnesaoo testified en this subjeet and the prlooo 
the/ gaTO Taried. After reading the testimony, we are of tha 
opinion that the Jury was warranted, from sueAi; teotiaeny, ia 
conoluding that tho roubloa would haro oeot the plaintiff 
(X9*00 a hundred in the open murket on the dato ia question. 

Vo find no error in the reoord and therefore tho 
jttdgmont of tho Maaieipal Oiovurt is affizuod. 

TAXLCii, P.J, ASD 0*G(MSOH, J. amOORm 

so • 28S»7 \ 

xiWABD J. aMitm^ 

i^lftlntiM' in Kr^T, 






UR. JUSTXCC fHCMSCB d«liTere<i th« opinion of tta« 

J^ thin writ of «rror» th« df>f«tidaiit (^rt^r* •••ks 
to r«T*rs« a Ju4cMMmt for $6, COG r«QOT«»r«a l>y th« plaintiff 
in AH motion ef ttte first elASe, ia the ii^unieipal Court ef 
€9dm#»a o*^^ Jtt4#B»nt follovii^ th<» Y<«rdlot of a Juty find* 
iac th« i*«t4i« for th« plaintiff and aaoaaaing; M» daaagoa 
at thff asount naaad« 

fha i^lalntiff*s stateaent of olaia allagad ttaat 
hi» olaiM vaa for aroMtootural e«rri9*e roadcrod the dofi^nd* 
fkot, at tho special inotanee anu requast of thft latter, upon 
oral ctontraeta b«t»»«n th9 d^'fendant and his duly autlwrisad 
ACttnt, on* WaXdMuit and th<? plaintiff; that the dofandani 
abroad to pi^ th^ plaintiff for hie oaid oerrioee, t«a and 
•»• telf paro«ntua ef the ooist of th(» building to ba areotod t 
as iadie&tad by the oontrnetor*s bids in the p\m of $34C,0Q0« 
«hi^ WJ3S $8,SC02 that the plaintiff fumiohod all the ser- 
rices aallad for by the oontraot but that the defendant aade 
IM paynente ta the plaintiff; that after the plaintiff ha* 
•Cii^letad the plans and drawings oontraoted for by the de 


f«ad«iit, %h» l«tt«r clectsd not i» pr«04»«di vlth the Wild* 
lac aecwziiinii to th»M 9l«a« aB4 r#4«est«4 th<» ]>lalntiff*« 
e«rTi9«s in furnishing a«v plana far a different buil dings 
tbat, purauant to aueh r<*q[U«Bt %ht? plaintiff aHmin renderad 
profaacienal s«rvie«« aa an arehitaot mmi pr«pArad naw plana 
for ft building to <!iest approxijaatel/ |34C,OO0 far vhi cdi tha 
dafandant agraad to pay th« plaintiff ona*h«lf of one p^r 
aant of eald aiaount* or $1700, whisth snm tha d«f«ndant haa 
failad and rafuaad to pajr* although all of aaid eerrio^e 
bava "b^ttn r«ndared» eonplataa ana furnioued Igr tlia plaintiff; 
that plaintiff's total olnins for th^ »«rTi caa r*^nder«d at tha 
dafmidaat*a raquest* otaouatad to $1&»200. 

Tha affidavit of merita denied th« allagationo of 
tha atat«aant of olaiai. Aa va Tiav thia oaso, it preaento 
only ana iaoua, naaaXy. did the dafand&nt naka th« oontraeta 
for tha plaintiff* a aarTieea imd '««r9 thoea aarYicae r9nd«r«d 
\Kf tha plaintiff for tha defandemtt aa tha plaintiff allagaa, 
•r wtfT^ thay rnndarad for anothert That tha plaintiff r«?n» 
darad eartain ar ohi ta etural a^rTieao ie not deniad. 

liiiljr of thk faota praa«ntad lor the reoord, ara not 
diaputad* Tha daf»ndaat« Carter, evnad a raluahle piaea of 
UMlavrorad raal aatata, en trhieh thara waa a aMrtgaga for eoaa 
$3C«c.'C0, Ra llatad it for aala with Olirar 4k Ona^amy , raal 
•atata hrokara. Ona Harila af that fim, au^ggaatad to Carter 
that tha prepartjT ha iayroTad and in that oonnaetion, ha 
introduead him to a nan aaM«d Valdaaa* Cartar had no funda 
%ift% ha and Vaidtoaa rnaohad an agraanaat wharalqr th« lattar «aa 
to finaaoa tha ara ot ion of a building on th« defendont*a pro* 
9*rtjr* Cartar and WaJlimui axaeuted a preliainary writtan 
•gra«M»at ir. vhieh #«ldteaan »4S^^'f^ to "aubnit akatohaa, plana 


and sp«eifi«fttlens* f«r Carter* e tt9W9mfmX, for whieh 
Cartfiir «gr««d "to pigr not in «>;o«»b of oao*h«df of th« 
uouttl arohitoot*o f««a»* »nd it was farthe>r oxprooolx 
proTidod tlut "no ohar^« for such piano shall 1»« »ado*« 
should W^J.dman fall to flnaaeo thn d«al. A^ut tho tlao 
thle preliminary n4{r?«mont was ^ntftrod into by Cartor 
and mldMaa, or shortly th«r«aft«r, th« plaintiff Bufldcott 
vao Introdttood to Cartor hy Waldauui in th« latt«r*B offioo^ 
Botvoon this tiao and tho middlo of A^ril* the partioo had 
a. aumbAr of oonffprenoeo, OTor «}iich thf^i« is dlsputo. It 
is net denied* how«>T«r, that on April 18, 1916, Carter 
and Vol Asian onterod into a final and aoro foinal oontraoi 
eoTorlng the oroetion of a building on Cartor*e property* 
This oontraet proTid<^d« anong ether things* that "final 
plans and speoific&tionp shall be furnished by oaid oen» 
traotor (VaXdnuui) prmptaeei b>y said Arthur 3, Bu^ett * '^ i^ 
and all arohitoot'e foot* in oonneotion «i th eaid p^laae and 
spooifieationfi and the oreetion of said buildings shall bo 
three per eent iW») of the oost of the na torial and labor 
for said buildings, to bo paid on eooond nortgnge notes 
heroiaaftor mentioned. » <^ • ?he said oontraotor shall 
rftceiTO as oasQ>«nsation (in addition to cost of Inbcr »nd 
aaterial) ton per oent (10^) of the oostc thereof, and 
oaid ton per oent (10^) • together witiii th« three par oent 
(3^) for arehi toot's foas. shiai be paid to a^^la contraotor 
iQr aaid ovnor. by tho delivery to said oontraotor by said 
ovaer of the ooeoad mortgago aotof^ hereinafter m«»ntioned.* 
It aas further exproasly proTided in this agreemont that if 
it tranepirec*. that tlie cost of the labor scid natt^rlals for 
the building as eallad for by the final plana, exoeeded 
t30C,000« either party oould withdraw and toraiaato the 

■ ijiiis>%jp 


«gr««ment on giving a stlpulate^il notloe. 

Zt 1« further shewn hjr ih« eirl(im«« an<i not 
Ainputitd, thftt »u«lc«tt h«I(i tocLOic on tu« pli^ja vunti) th* 
contrnot b«tw««R 0«rt«r «nd ,^'«Iit»n«n hnd }»9»n «x«out*4 antS 
ih«w) he vr«at fth««d, t^ pr«|>ai-«d |^laan« en i>!Ftaiob oerinin 
bids w#r« taJcnn and it tran«pit«4 that the Wilding van 
going to eoft over #90^000 ba^y^oa^i th« nwftuat #Al<Sa«a h»A 
V«i«a nbl« to mrrnnfi* for, to finanoe th<? d««l» and iffaldaea 
gnv* up hit 0ffort» ancl in July hie eontmot with Cart or 
nan formally oaao«lla4. 

Barric thi^n brought a n«w man into the* deal* ena 
aattoohalk, who finally finanead the «>r«otion of the build* 
ing that wan put up on thv (i«f«n4ani*B pr«p«<»rty« Buak«tt 
sad* an effort to haTO Sottoohalk «n${aga hisi as the arohi* 
ta«t on this building but h* deelinad, finally proj^oning tn 
haT« Itt^att aairoolaitd with hin arohiteot on a waf'icly oalaxy» 
wMoh BuQ^att rofuoad. Oatteehalk ongagAd hlis own arohitoeto* 
vha preparad all th« plans and spoeif icmtions for th<^ build* 
lag as sraotad at « ooot of about $700, 000* After Buokctt 
was out sf tli« dsal ha saw Carter* and, at hi« r«qu««t» 
Carior shswad hi« a «apy of this ValdSMi* Darter oontraot* 
ttuokoti askad for a eopy of it, saying hm was going to got 
aft«r Ww^4jmm, Hs did not ask Carter for any «cn«y, or slaia 
that Cartor had hlrad hi» sr was indebted to hin in any way, 
but about a aonth lat<»r hs wroto Cartsr r«i|tt«stiag jmyaant 
of $X0,2&0 for th« svrvioes tm had r«ad«r*d« 

Tho faots thus far r(?f«rr»d to are not disputod in 
ths r«eord. Harris and aottsehalk t(?etifi«ci to ooaTsrsations 
thcyr had with the plaintif r, Buokf^tt, and although h« took 
the sia»d in robuttal h<^ did net deny th«% fiarrie t««ti« 


fi»4 that Bucic«ti bftd tola hi« tHat h« lia<t \M<m 9ai»loy«4 on 
thin Job lity ^wX^buoki that aftor Waldiiuua failed to finwnoo it. 
Harric took Butdcott OTor to #•• eottsohalk and triod to la* 
iik«« tli<* lattor to employ him, (tolling OottoehaUc, in 
Sttek»tt*o yr^aoneo, thnt J^okott «aa th* nrohitoet wim 
tm4 ls>c»en cmplo/ed Iqr 9nl4nan); tluit Buokott hs^A Qon«eat«d 
ia f* to eo« aottae)«alk« with Harria, onljr ai»on baiait roloaaatf 
Igr tal^toaaj tbAt Buolc«t% aiat«4 in eomroraation vith Oattsafaalk* 
thnt v«14«nn kn4 on^lajrad him; tha.% at another tino >u<dt«Ttt 
ani4 he ooulA not nffard to ai»ott4 «ngr wmr» nonay on this Joli 
tlMta wan nooananigr a« ha vaa t&kinc * ohanoo an it»* that if 
VnlAana nould a6van«« Mm aaiia aen«!y on it h«* oeulti mako 
mere rapid pragroaa; thnt waXdmnn said, in tlM skr^oraioe af 
Bnekatt, that ho did not iHtaiiA to iq;»and any mara moaagr 
than noo^aaary iHt^mnMg unaor hi a ngr««m«nt with Oartar^ 
tba lattor wovtld b« hald harmloaa unlaan ha (Waldaian) eould 
raiaa a aafficK^nt lean} that Buakott aaidi h«!) vould do th<? 
varic in tho «voninKa inaaanioh aa it wna a gnmm af ehanoc 
vhathor th^ gat tho aontxmet «r not; that ^okatt told 
Jiia (Uarrio) that ha «aQ»«etad faldnan te pay him far tha 
««xk he had dona; thai an anath^^r aaonaion* BudEott told 
him that Vaidmnn man tad him to taka hio oQwnic&iOBK in tho 
form af a aaaond mortgag*. 

eottaehalk tooUfiod that in hia initial talk with 
Haryia isind tho plaintiff Bnokott. ho aakod Buokr^tt what hia 
relation «»a with Cmrtor anci that Bu«icott ropllod that ho had 
a eantraet vitu WaidmM whioh proridad that ha wao to ba tho 
nrohitaot far tha htillding if Valdaan oeald finanoa it,- that 
ha h«sd no oail'tmat whataror with Cartar* 


fiaiv th« plftlaiiff 4id not d«iii3r this t««tin«flgr 
in r^WttAl, h» did «1t« sone teetinon^r in ^jutting i* hit 
auULa MM« vdtaioh ia part at l«a«t oontfmdiot«4 th<»»« wit* 
a«SMc f«r the <l«f«n4«at. 9Wr inetanGe, )i« t^ntifi^d th«t 
viMB he w«nt witn tterriii to ••« aotttiohAUc* he iasii>t«4 
upon going oaljr «• rapr«««ntlng Cftrt«r. Ed further t«»ii» 
fi«4 tli«t he toU aettaehalk that Oart«r had hirad hi« as 
his arshitsot* 

Th«r« «as B shairp sonfllot in th^ taetinpoyof tha 
|4»intiff who slainad the hiring:, en th« one he&tui, und th« 
d fandant« who d«ni«a it, on th« other. Buoicett t«tttin«d 
that in his first talk with Cartar* vhcn hs was iatroduoad 
to hi« Iqr Vaiidttaa in tha lattar*e affiaa, ha told Oart«r 
that ha inid<»rataa4 that ararami^mants h«d ba«ii ottda to take 
oara 9f tk» fiaaaaiag of the hvUldiag and that "this is is 
¥a a tva and ona»iMilf p«r oent arohiteeitiral i^'b", aad that 
Carter r«pli««, "Yas, that is right"; that on anothf^r oaoaaioa 
Gmrtt^x told hia that if the oeat ran higher, h« ooald staad 
it; that BtanAtatt said h« undi^xstoad Cartar had property 
vhioh ai«fht 1»« tumad into this deaX, and Carter rwpliad, 
"Xas"; that ha told Carter that tha suattar of not#e, to 
vhioh yalteaa had rmffrr^A (tha sacond siortgaga aotas that 
Waldiaan wanted Buokatt to taka) isttst ba T»ry d<>'fittital/ uasdar* 
stood, far ho had haatjr aarrjriiag ataargas.* tiuit ha oould af« 
fard to taka #&«000 in aatas if ha gat %ht> hal«aaa in oash. 
"ahiah X toXd Mr, ValdoMa*. and that Carter rapliad. »Vry 
tMlI« that aaunda lika a fair prepasitiea*; that 9a another 
•aansioa ha told Cartar ha vaa going to aanaid arable aaq^nsa 
in this voA and that it irould eost a good daal to pat the 

noi^ in flmal »te|p«« "eutidi I waat jrour aasaruieft in th« 
aaiti«r 1»«fortt I proomm^,* «a4 t^t Oaortcr replied, *Y6u 
haf* mjr ateurano* ami 2 will ••« that you are treated 
riftlxt"'; that at Ikift ti«« Sattaahallc oaaa into th<» deal 
IM, Buokett, iald Gutter that h* wanted a Tery definite 
und' re trading at te their relaii^^na** that he .wanted te 
Icnev JttBt whAt hie relation to uetteehalk would he and 
what his remmeration woiad he in thn n«v deal, r^nd that 
Carter eaid, *X will give you an additional one^half per 
eent oTer your figure in the prerioue deed if y^^Vk will 
handle thie new deal through the drawing of plane and epeoio 
fioatloaa and th« taking of figuree** and that he told Oarter 
tee would aeeept that offer* 

On the other han*. Carter teetified that in one of 
their first talks he told Btt<dcett that hie arrangewmit with 
Wali^saa was that the arehiteot*e ooianieeion was to ho half 
the usual amounts that he wanted it underetood thstt he had 
no aene/ to gtf into such a proposition and that ^'afdtaan h«d 
«ad<r>rtaksn to fimy»oo the huildiag and furnish all the nsnejr 
aeoesaarar for ewery purpose in eennoettion with it; that ho 
asked Bttokett if he felt he (Oarter) oouid be pre teots4« 
vitii an arohitect working with the eontraotor *inst*sdi of 
onployed hy »••* that Hudtett oaid that it was oooing to he 
the siistoasjy wax: that he talked with Budcett about the 
ionM oftlM ecntraot he had made with Weldt«am; that on one 
eceasioa when tal4taan« Buokett and the witness were together* 
thi^re was s«Me talk about 3uskett*s ooatpeasation end thst 
luekott said to Wal4aMui« *You don't eicpeot no to take sll my 
nsasQr in paper do jrouT" and that laldaaa paseod it off and 
said ssmethittg te the of feet that thiqr would not talk auout 
it than,* *Vo Will fix that up"; that it was during his soooad 


talk wltn Buok«tt ihAt "Itol4 hln iQr a]>rang««i« i* with Mr. 
WaliaHia «a« that h« Inui to furnish a« th« «rcMt«otur»l 
••rriee at oii«*l!wZf tlk« ttsui&l f«« « « » th«t Mr* VftldBiaa'a 
•Otttraot with n« iras to provl<&« the funds for fiBaaoiag 
the dftal rsmd that la th« sTeot that he oould not do so I 
wui to ]»• jrat to no oxposo* in ooanftetioa with it*; that 
Baskott was pr««ent whan thft witness eoniplainiid About tho 
d«lajr and Waldnan said, *if you mre not vM&tisfisd with 
what wa ar« abls to <io juad I «a not ahlo to finAnee th« 
4onl, wo will hand you your oontraot hadh;*; that on ono 
•foaaion Buokett told hia taXdmaa was hlamlng him (Budestt) 
haoftttso thA figures wer«! runninis so high and thmt he fait 
a hit restless and that he did not want to ha doa^od in this 
matter ,• if this deal Ie; going through* 1 want to know that I 
am soiiv to got a aqiiara deal** And that he (Carter) assured 
Bttdkett hs would not oonaant to an/tMng else«- that he did 
net see how Buokett eould be '^dwap^ed*' as he was the archi* 
taot oaaod in tbe oontraot he (Garter) hmd with Valdman. and 
*•• far sa I a» oonoemed X wo ild see that ytrn get a s<iuare 
deal hilt 1 think ttr. ValdsHUi has no euoh intention aa that"; 
that Bu<Acett said what ho wanted was Carter* a nssuranee that 
IM would se«» that he (Buflkett) got a st^nare deiU* Hs test!* 
fied further thnt when the figures rrm u|» oyer |50*00C ahewe 
the aao 4it VaXdnaa was able to arrange for in hie (Efforts to 
finanoo the deal, he (Oarter) offered to ralsa |1&,000 on the 
oqttitjr he had in aMth«r pieoe of propert]r« if that would do 
amy good. Ho testified that whan Harris proposed hringlng 
gottsohalk into the deal, ana taking Buokett oirer to oao hia 
with the plana* Buokett first ohjeoted. saying that ho oould 
not do that without «aldaaa*s ooasent and that Waldaan said ho 
would be willing to hawe Buokett take the plana to (jottsohalk; 




ttet lAter Bu«k«tt %nl4. Ma, *if tMe Aid de«X h&» faU«a 
through* vhgr* X «« go ins <»^^* &f%«r this Jo^ if Mr. Oott* 
»«)ial]e 1« goiae to 8«t it;* that h* (Oarter) ofi«r««( t« 
talk with aottftoMOk in Buoli«tt*s iiit«(r«»t end try to got 
Ma to retain Buokatt aa thf^ arehitaet and that he did 
talk with oattaohaUe fm^i ioid Buokatt about it« Ho tosti* 
fiad a>aut Budratt aoking to «•« a oopy of hie contract 
with Waldaas aftar walteaa had djroppod out of tha d««l» 
Buokati aayiag hM iatandad to "aaa* ffalilMaa or **go aftar 
hia"; that Bu«k«tt said that while ha knaw the gaaaral 
tarao af the oontraet* iM had net boon fflMsiXiajr with aoaa 
•t tha datailo af it; that h« {Clart«?r) had mt oioaed hit 
daal with aettsehalk at th«f tioa Buokott hrak« with tha 
Xattar Mid that hm told ; imt to Buekatt at th<* tic^ia. Qartor 
o9«aifio«lly d«»ni«d aaoh at th*^ ccnTaraationto Bu<&eti oXaiaad 
to hava had with hia aanearniag hie <s<aiii»«nsatlon aa tastifiad 
to V Budtett* 

On thio raeerd ^a ar« of tha opinion that tha 
Yardiot for tha plaintiff io not supportad hjr tha manifaot 
vaight of tha ari danaa. The taotiaaagr of tha plaintiff 
ia antireljr without oorroho ration, eithar hy tho tevtlao^ 
of othar witnaoeas or by stay tmett aau eirouaatanoea in* 
▼olTod in tho oaoa, whilo iimt of the dofendaat io oloarljr 
otrroharatad by bath. It 1« of oourao trua, as tha plain* 
tiff eontanda, that Bu<fcatt oould not ba bound by tha oon- 
traota <mtar«d into by Carter and Waldaaa and thasa sontraots 
ware not adaissibla as binding Buokett but they were adaiasibla 
aa taading to eorroborata the t«sttaa«y of Carter to the offeat 
that ho *u%nrm^ into no oontraet or agraaaent with Buokett aa 
tha Xattar Aaiaad. It ie evieient that Carter, having aada a 
contract with faldaan, whereby the latter was to finanea tha 

• 10- 

•r*«tion of A tniildLLag on Cart'^r** 9]rei>«rt]r «n<i wh«r«)gy 
h» v»» furtlwr to fumiali th» arohlteotural 8«rYle«» andt 
IM •llomd i^ an the oetet of th» building* th<«rcfor. would 
iMTe ae •o«iisi«ii *te oontraot for «ueh ottrrioeo ialouiclf iKith 
th«> Tory arohltoot «ho»« o«7t1cwo fiFftldmaa h»<i in hio ««;rto* 
■Mnt. eontmotod to ^roTido. TImt BudEott kxiov of XhM Wald- 
acin* ^:«rt«r oontraet, antt In a general vajr vhi^t It proridod. 
«« do not dau1»t froia tlM! «vld«ne«. 

V« ar« l^irthar of tli» opinion that %h» trial eourt 
•rrad in dftnying tha d«f«ndaat*e motionR to iaatruot the JU17 
ta find tKa iaouaa in his favor »aada at the «»loa« of tli« 
plaintiff *a oaaa and at the oloao of oil %hn evld^not*. That 
tho plaintiff, la hia otataaant of oloiia, allagoo <^aoiyf a jjgi 
tjaati w ith th« dftfendant wh«r«^ th«» latter prottio^d to yojr 
id» 9S«900 far hie onrTioaa tindar the firat oontraet. cmd 
$X,7t)0 undar th<^ oaeoad o<»»tmdt« m^ further allagao that 
tlM d^«idaat hoA fallad to pa;^ hiai that ooi^^eneatlott al* 
though ha had fully parformed all tho aorriooa oontraoted 
far, ateito of no douht. Xt la a^ually olaar thAt the plain* 
tiff*o «!Tld«n3« failed tu» auike out a ariwa facia oaoe in 
eupport of that atataaant of dlaim* Wa have rmftirrmd to all 
eonraraatlOBo taetif led to hy the plaintiff In ovppert of 
hie diala that €!art<^r had ax^reooly proaiaed to pay hijt SirjC 
an the oeet af tha huilding at originally oontemplatad, or 
^••800« It will not be neoeaaary to repaat them here, in 
our opinion tboee oon-reraatloaa do not naka eat a aontraot 
aa the plaintiff olaiaa, Ho thing that the plaintiff hiaaalf 
taatlflaa that th*^ d«fend«nt aaid, can he held to a»ouat to 
the expreae oontraet on whloh the plaintiff haa broug^ht thla 
aoit, Tha wordo which th« plaintiff dlaiaa the defendant 
aaad are aiallair to those iavalrad in Breltenetein ▼• 


Xli4wnd»wi J^tVMI t^nA muhim jo. . X«2 Hi, App, 3»9, at 
9ftge» 4C£U444, wiaum Ujis matt, h«l<i th&t tb« lftr^(Uttg« 
UMd did not niklc«-0ut n <30||ir«ot. there le a largo AMOtiat 
of oTid^«« In tli« reoord iwrolrlac th« Otttaioelen of tojw 
ions plans nnd (ricotohfoo to a»ri»r Mid hio oritleioai of 
tium mnd ek^agoo nuido in th^m At M«i oug^EO^'tion. nono of 
vlaielk o^n havo osur tondoncgr to oitiyj^rt plttittiiff*« Alloga* 
tloas thot oa^rooo mntraote ««re «i^nt«rf d into* ^on if %hm 
«vid«nc« tended to auJco out a« i«pliod oimtmott '«hieh vo 
dsulstt it could !(M»t oupport this rerdiet tmd JIudgBumt. for 
hoving d«olar«d en an 93s& sontvistet* tho plaintiff oould 
not r«MTor on tl)«? t^toory of nn io^liod oontroot. 

As to th« soQoad oontrftot into irhio^ plaintiff 
dooXojroo tbo d« fondant onterod with hiw, th« plaiatiff'o 
«vid«»«« dooo mak9 out « ttr;^ »« faoio onoo to the «ff«ot 
tliot ih0 eoRtrnot vas utadtt, but %h&,t eTid<tno<f> not only 
failo to »ho« Ihat tlm plaintiff fulfilled hio part of 
tlM» eontraet and «nd«rad th« o«rrie«:!S oontraot«d for but 
it affirmatlTol/ «l«nio that th.p mntrtkty io th« eaoo, flnia* 
tiff*s *Tld«ao« no to thio oontraot is that dofondant ogrood 
that h« wo aid i^gr th« plaintiff tho additional aaouat otiiraip 
Iftiod* »if you 9ill handl* thio nf^ doal t>irough the drnviag 
of piano and opooifi cations ano the taking of figureo,* 
Plaintiff makoa m pr»ton«o of haying done that for ho hia- 
•olf testified that upon hio fAilnro to ohtaln a oatiofaotojy 
ojrrmngeiaent with aot'.aohalk, h« got out of the doal and thon 
vont to 00* i3«rtor and told Mn ho vae « through ontirol/" 
and adTiood hla to do "praotioally what X hare dono,* got out." 

For the ronoens stated » the Jadgaont of tho leunieipal 
Oourt is roTorood with a finding of faoi» 


J. «« 



Tixmm aw VAOf i 

W« fiBd at a faet that th» iafmdejat 414 n«t 
contra ot witr, the plaintiff f©r hin e'-rvioeij an ali«i3;«d 
mad that »u<A »arTioas as the plalatlff rendarad, v<»ra »ot 
raiMlerad hy him for the cl«?f«nci«(nt, Imt far another. 


42 - 2^1^79 



J>ef endant 





Plaiaftiff in Krror. ) 

219 I-A- 6^1 

H«. JUSTICK THCliCON delivered th« opinion ©f the 

By this writ of error th« defondant ooeke to reT«rs« 

tho judgn«nt of the ^uniGlpal Court of Ohioago, finding Ma 

guilty of X lying with a woman in an open/notorious state of 

adultery and eentenoini; Ms to the House of Correction for 

sixty lays. 

It is urged oy defendant that the finding of the 
oourt is against the Bianifest weight of the eyideneo and also 
that the oourt erred in admitting certain oonYersationa ia 
OTidenoe althou,^h they took plaoe in hio absence. 

As to the first point, we cannot say that the find* 
lag of the oourt is ag^iaet the manifest weight of the eon* 
fliotiais eTid^moe as it is contained in the record, Imt fur* 
ther, the record fails to show that it contains all the eri- 
denoe heard by the oourt and in the absence of such showings 
we must assxuae that the court heard sufficient eridenoe to 
warrant the finding auide. People y. Adaats . 239 111. 339. 

As to the lecond point although the record shows 
that the defendsjit miide objection to the adwLssion of tho 


•rid«no« rftferrcd t« it do«B not dicolose anjr ruling ia&<l« ligr 
th« Qourt and furth«rmer« th« record at&tee that by agroomttnt 
the OBSO at bar was tri«d tog(!!th«r with another case of the 
sane nature in which th(> woman inrolYed in thie charge was the 
defendant « and the oonversatioas referred to were had in her 
presence and were adjslseihXe as to her* the caeee were tried 
"hy the court, without a Jurjr and we »ust ]pre«ume that &« to 
this defendant* the court consi<ic;red only sucih evidence as 
was competent as to him. 

We find no error in the record and therefore tho 
Judgment of the Municipal Court S» affirmed. 


fAn.CK, P.J. AHii 0*G(MSQR, J. ac^CUH. 


107 V 2536 

THK MUii'LB OF fm SfATJ! 0? lLci»^ 


a:9X» i;uaG'^iiY^ 6 oorpor«,tlo|f, and VRAK* 
CIS «r. fiioep4u>sca, jDir^oi^r of H«i;iR. 
tmtiOA and l^Auoition 0/ th« stat« ef 



219I.A. 641 

MR, Jrosna^ THCaiSCS 4ieliT«rcd th0 opiBicn of the 


4pp«IIant fil«>d *.in petition for vMOiAsmvMt «• ))« 
Btftt«0 it in hi« b7i9f» filed by ap9«ilsjit pro »f . ^dir«et«cl« 
flrotl;^* to th« HRrraml ModioaX CoXlogo CorpciratioB* ooBouuidUUm 
it forttawitli to l£ou« or o«ae« to b« iaeuod from ite MoOiOftl 
Collog*. tb« *Jenn«r Modioli '^Il«go,* a oortifioata of er«4» 
it* for the froofaKori una •epbonero years, 4aly ox«Quto4 Igr 
th« effiei*r8 of said oorporatioa* attootod tuy ita oorporat* 
•oal, aft 1* th« Ottotea of its mll0$9 in iaouing certifioat* 
of full oredits, if th« jlonnatt Ooliogo of l^eloetio Modioiac 
and aurgery, aftor aeoepiiag aps»«ll»nto* fer«i|ps eredito a« 
«»<l*ii Talent to the B.S. dogree. oubnitting hia to an exajnina* 
tlon in all th« auujeeta «Nliraeed in the freolnan, eoi>ho»ore 
and junior jr^man. Matriculating hin ao a senior and eonforr- 
in^ tt£MBB hin th« degree and title of Seetor of Medieine* is 
entitled to r«ceiTe and obtain firi»t the said eertifloatos of 
ort'dit for the freehoaa and eophesMTo years freai tht^ Jenner 
Madieal CelXogo, 1»«fore delireriac untc the appellant a diy* 



loHui or oarXitiOAtm of grftteation} seoondly* dli-Aoteit %9 
th« B«»n«tt College 0t :tel*eiio i^edieio* sad iaurgeyyt 
lag it forthwith to ia«tt« tm4 (Hslirtr unto aippollftnt his dl]H» 
lona or oertiflonio of gr doatloit, duljr oxeeutod \^ th« offioor* 
of ofiiA «ozvorfttion« attestod hf lie oovporato ooal, «• 1« tK« 
Ottttom of sttld oollofto in iRfuiag dipl»mo or e4»rtlfic&t«« 
of graduation; Utlrdljr. dir<r«ot«d to Fraaeio ff, £>iM»i»»rd«on, 
direotor of tho JDopartnoiit of JRogiotratioa emd Eduoatloa* if 
tlio reeipiont of a dit>l*n« trosA th« Bmmott Oollagi? of Kolootio 
Xodielao aad Surgory woulo ontitlo hla to praotieo a«dieia9> 
and ^yutgrnrj in th^ ^tate of Ulinoio, ooaanandiag Ma fortfawitli 
to tooitto 9M4 dollTor to appellant, aftor payiag th« roQuirod 
foo, a lleottoo for the praotieo of modioino ea<i ourgorjr la 
tho r»tato of IlliaeiB; nn^ if t^to reoipioat of a diploma from 
tha Boaaott Cell«c« of Kolootio llodioiao aad Sux^ory d09« aot 
oatitlo him to praotlee aadioiae «ad mrgorgr la tha >;tato of 
Illiaoio without first takiag and paoeiag an oxamiaatioa, 
OUBMOidlag hifli forthwith to adait appollaat to parti eipato 
ia tho oxnyniaatioa without projudioos aad that oueh further 
•rdor aajT be entered in th^ pr«9iia«» ae Juotioe aagir reqiuire.* 

The B|»pell««o f llt^d dosmrrere to th« petition whioh 
were Buataiaed. Appellant eleoted to etnad on hio p«titioa 
aad pra/od tm appeal. 

Aa exwEaiaation of the petition showe it to be a 
oongloaoratioa of pleadiag aad eTideno«« etateiBente of fact 
aaA ooaeluoioao, aiaoty^four txpewrittea pageo ia laagih« 
It wholly faile to oet forth eay propar grouado for the loouiag 
of th* writ prayed for. Although the eaoe at bar iarolToo 
other defendants oad ie«?uee, it ie oonelusiTely d^'teraiaed by 
what tbio oourt oaid in ^00^31 f ^ r«»l Ml^helaagelo j^acell|L ▼• 
Iwajwt^ ^ioiae Colleao . 2u& III. App. 324, As was th«>re said. 




*Co'lli»<e* and uniT«rsiti«ii mu»t b<? the JudftOB ftf QualiflotttioBa 
of ««(lieRl •ittdvatii. A m«iii<saX sohool nust h« tli« Jtt4|^ of ih« 
qu*llfleatloaa of its stud^nte t» b^ grant«d th* a«gre« ef 
deotor of sKftdislno.* Th'^ mnm^. tMoft Is tru# »« to th« qu«llfi* 
eat ion of etudonto in » glv«a eobool to b« granted ci^rtuin 
or^aits, yoT th^ aourto to diroot hy writ of nftnd«MQu« thnt a 
aadioal B":hool shall giT« ttit>i«r atairinia epooified er^dits or 
a dipl«iia to « potitionin^ student who has failed to moot tho 
roquirod grados i» a«rtai« of bis oubj^ots, aeoording to tho 
Judenont of th<3 sehool, would \->m pre^ostorouo. Sueh io the 
situatioa as dieolosod on %,hM fa9« of this p«titi<.a. 

The duworrore wero properly ouotalaed and th^refora 
tho Jttdgaioat of tho Suporior Court i« affiraod* 

tATCLOR, P.J. ASi) 0*-3€lf 'CK, J. CQSOUE, 

489 • 207S^ 



Appcll •«! ) 


Aps^Ilant. } 

219 I.A. 641 

MR. JU&TICK THGHSOK dsliTtred the opinion of the 


B,> thle a9t>ec(l , the def enclant eeelcB to r«T«'r8e the 
Judgment of the MuBioip*! Oourt Of Chioago, by which he «r« 
foun(i to he the father of the be.Btatrd cMlO of the relatrlx* 
Jean«ti« Frits, following the verdiet of a Jury, hj^a «a« ad* 
Judged to pay th<? olerk of eaiu oourt #S50 in inetalraento, 
for the support, Baintenenoe and oduoation of said ehild. Ho 
contends the Terdiot ia again»t the manifest weight of the 
erid^nee »nd aleo that the Municipal O^urt #&.» without Jurie* 

Wa liawe oarafully examined the eiricienoe ao we find 
it in the reoord. It is, of oourte* eontradietory. The 
■iatar of the relatrlx and a polioeaan of Blue Island, llli« 
aols, where the parties resided at the tine of the relations 
InrolTed, testified for the d<?fendant. The testiaony of the lat' 
ter witness was entirely uainportajat. It is apparent that 
the relatrix and her sister were not on good terns. Her 
testimony alght be wholly true, hewoTor, cind yet the defend* 


ant be guilty, as the jury found. 

W« do not find the etory of the proaeoutrix **•• 
out of aooord with all reaaenable probability that It stanqpa 
itaelf an beyond belief," &» counsel for the defendant oon* 
tends. 4uite the contrary* Certain faotn, admitted or 
nentioned in the teetlaony of the defendant and of the 
•ioter of the relatrix, tend to oorroberat* her. It «ro<ild 
m9rr* oo purpooe to analyse the eri dense. That it eupporta 
the rerdiot Ik dlear. If the jury believed tha relatrix 
and did not belieTO the defendant* ae well they night, the 
▼erdiot is the only on*? that oouli hare been returned. 

The question of the J|uri»diation of the >iuniolpal 
Ooiirt ie one which the defendant ia not in a position to 
raise now. It ie the Juriadiotion of hie person that he 
ealle in question, eontendlng that he waa not found within 
the City of Chicago but was arreatsd at Blue Island and 
later brought to Oiieago. But the defendant wei^t to trial 
on the morita wit^»out raiaing any qur^ation aa to the court* a 
Juriediotien «nd did not do so until aone time after the 
trial was OTer. Froeeeding to trial on the merita waives 
objection to juriadietion of the parson. Adamaki v. wiecaorek . 
9S 111. App. 357. 

We find no error in the record and th rcfore the judj- 
aient of the Munieipal Court is affiraed* 

TAYLOR, P.J. Aim 0»aO]SJ;OH, J, CONflUR. 



458 - 25719. 

LOOM I. MULLIIIS, i4ceiTer of 
5!lSrGIEW00D SASH 3o 1)00^ COMPkM , 
a corporation, 




T HE LE HI GH 7 AU.^ry C Oil |COMP Atf? , 
a corporation, I 



./ 2191.^.642 


On this day the appellee oomes into ooort by his 
solicitor, and appellant comes likewise hy its solicitors, 
and file herein their stipulation that the sqppellee con- 
fesses the errors assigned upon the record, both parties 
consenting that for such errors the decree of the Circuit 
Court be reverstd and the cause remanded to that oourt with 
directions to the Circuit Court to dismiss the bill of com- 
plaint without cost to either paarty and that each party pay 
his own costs in this court. 



37 - 25796 \ 


Plaint if A in T^Tror, ) 


a ocrporation* \ 

Defendant in'^rer. 



219I.A. 642 


In tiils action for »allcioU8 prosecution a Yerdiot 
was directed for defendant and a Judgaent of nil capiat entered 
thereon, from which plaintiff prosecutes tnis appeal in an at* 
terapt to reverse the Judi^ent. 

The principal contentions for reversal are that the 
record of the criffiinal proceedings upon which the action of this 
prosecution is founded is adsoissihle only for the purpose of 
ahOT/inir the commeno«)ent and ternilnfttion of the criminal proceed- 
ings and for no other purpose; that the question of probable 
cause was one of fact for the Jury; nnd in arguendo that a 
verdict for defendant could not be inatructed; l»otly, that the 
verdict finding defendant guilty of a criminal action is not con- 
cluaive on the question of probable cause. 

The facts In brief are that jieptember 28» 1914, a 
burglary occurred in the wholesale store of defendant in Chicago, 
in whlcn two safes were blown open and a number of fountain pens, 
briar pipes, operm glasses, and other tilings were taken by the 
burglars. The watctiman of defendant was bound by the two marauders 
whc committed the burglary, and from a description furniehed by 
this watchman to certain detectives some of the goods were traced 
to the otar Hub Loan itank, a pawnshop in Chicago. These goods 
were identified by one Scott, an employee of defendant, as being 

the goods of defendant. The pawnbroker upon being questioned as to 
^fhere he obtained the goods named plaintiff. Detectives visited 
the store of plaintiff and there found other goods belonging to 
defendant. Jtlaintlff being asked «vhere he got the goods said that 
his father had purohased them for him, but at the trial testified 
that he had said t^iat he bought the goods at auction sales. The 
father denied that he had purchased the goods for plaintiff, but 
said that plaintiff had at some previous time brought theo) in a 
trunk to his residence, plaintiff subsequently admitted that his 
stateoient that his father bought the goods was not correct, but 
that he had in fAot bought Uie goods from a man named Cippera at 
1644 TliToop street two weeks previous. Thereupon the poliee ser- 
geant went to the Throop street address and learned that cippera 
had left for Burope three yr^rs before and that the store was a 
grocery store. October li;, 1914, 3oott consulted a member of de- 
fendant's law firm and stated to his all the material facts re- 
garding the property found in plaintiff *s possession after the 
burglary and also infoTOied the la vyer that the detective sergeant 
had requested hia to sign a complaint, and wished to know what h« 
should do about it. ^oott was advised by tue lawyer that he had 
probable cause for arresting plaintiff and thereupon went to the 
Sast Chicago avenue police station with acott, ?rhere they had a 
conversation concerning the burglary with detectives and with an 
assistant state's attorney «nd two police sergeants, Bcott re- 
peated the facts of the case to the assistant state's attorney 
and the saae were related to a Judge of the tmnicipal court, and 
thereupon Scott signed the complaint under which plaintiff was ar- 
rested and held to bail in the su« of |1,000. October 23, 1914, 
defendant waived the hearing and the case was continued until. 
Bovsmber 13, 1914. on which date plRlntiff was held to the criminal 
court of cook county in bail of #2500, The grand jury returned an 


t:«£t roNUBX aixi 
id smAi 


!:?«» »»v ■Uft«'x<e»Taoo 

;n« ,4-%aoo ia^,: 

Indiotment against plaintiff to the <«o«mber tevta, 1914, upoa 
which indictment he was arraigned and pleaded net guilty. On 
February 10, 1914, upon a trial plaintiff was by the jury found 
guilty of receiving stolen goods, etc. A motion for a new trial 
was continued from ttoe to time until October 8, 1917, when the 
notion was granted and a new trial ordered, and on December 13, 
1917, on motion of the staters attorney the indictment was dis- 

(We might here paranthetical ly remark that the fact 
that the motion for a new trial was delayed for three years and 
eight months is eomeachat bafflini^ and not to be aoocunted for 
under ordinary rules of procedure.) 

m the fi3rst place, uoott swore tiiat he did not act 
for or at the request or «rith the knowledge of defendant in 
swearing out the warrant for plaintiff's arrest. This eTidenos 
is not contradicted, and it is therefore conclusiYe against 
plaintiff that the prosecution was not instituted by or with the 
authority of defendant, but that scott alone was the prosecutor. 

The evidence demonstrates amply that the prosecution 
was founded upon probable cause, uriioevsr may have instituted it. 
We think there are eif^ht instAnces aho'tring the existence of 
probable cause, «b follows; 

1, The advice of competent oounsel based on a dis- 
closure of all the pertinent known facts. 

2. The endorsement of the Municipal court Judge on 
the back of tlie complaint finding provable cause for filing it. 

3. Order of the kunioipal court judge of October 
13« 1914. tliat there was probable cause and holding plaintiff to 

4, order of the i^unicipal court Judge October 23, 
1914, reciting that there was probable cause. 



5, order of rjovember 11th of tii« junicipal coxu*t 
hcldiB« plaintiff tc the grand jury. 

6, lndi«ti^«nt of plaintiff toy the grand jury at 
the Deoenber term 1914, based on the teetimony of six witnesaea. 

7, overruling of motion of plaintiff to inetruot the 
Jury to return a verdict of not guilty on the trial in the 
Criminal court. 

8, The verdict of the jury finding plaintiff guilty, 
Koae of the foregoing has been rebutted by any claia 

or contention that any of the orders or actions there recited was 
brought about by fraud, perjury cr unfairness. In uahlber j^ v. 
Grace , 178 111, App. 97, it was held that a conviction in criainal 
cases is conclusive proof of probable cause for instituting the 
prosecution unless such conviction is proven to have been brought 
about by false or fraudulent testimony or other unlawful means, 
and that the record of such conviction ia adaiiseible in evidence 
on the question o£^ probable cause, notwithatanding the fact that 
the conviction may have been set aside by a court of review, or, 
as in the instant case, a new trial granted followed by a subse- 
quent di iccntinunnoe of the prosecution. 

The record in a criminal proceeding on which an ac- 
tion for malicious prosecution is founded is admiasible for the 
purpose of showing the existence of probable cause. While the 
question of probable cause has been held by this court to be one 
of fact for the Jury»s determination, yet when the evidence in 
disputably shows the existence of probable cause such question of 
fact is resolved into one of law and, ns in otixer cases ■^hexe a 
like condition in the evidence prevails, it is the duty of the 
trial judge to grant a motion instructing a verdict for the de- 
fendant, in Tuebbecke v, Kothschild' s, 152 111. App. 321, in 

reversing a Judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury, the 
court held that it waa inconceivable why the trial Judge should, 
under the circucsetancea recited, have refrained from directing a 
verdict. Youn^ v. lindatroro , 115 ihid 239, in whiou the court 
said: "While it is for the jury to determine the facta in any 
given caae, what const itutea probable cause is a queation of law.* 
^^ 9}- ^P .T? ^* lawrence , 280 III. 661, being an action for malicioua 
prosecution, »n instructed verdict for defendant waa sustained 
as being without error. 

It would have been proper for the court to have al- 
lowed the motion to instruct a verdict for defendant when plain* 
tiff rested his case, as he had given in evidence the complaint 
of ^00 tt with an order for prooeaa by a itiu^ieipal court judge 
thereon and the in lie tin en t of defendant by the grand jury for 
the crime charged in the coctplaint to have been coouaitted; »aioh 
were cogent evidences of probable cause, "iWiere probable cause la 
proven the querftion of malice is eliminated as a factor in the 

As there la no reversible error in tiila record, the 
judgment of the Circuit court is affirmed, 

Bever and t Courely, JJ,, concur. 


105 - 26e76\ 

' \ 

"T * ) / 

Appellant, L / 


corporation, \ /" ) ^ ^ r\ T li ^ 



In a jury trial defendant had a verdiot and judgment 
on ItB counter-olaim for 1649.66, and plaintiff appeals. 

She dispute between the parties relates to an item of 
#1062.98 claimed by defendant. The judgment ie the difference 
between that item sind the amount of plaintiff 'e el aim. Plain- 
tiff contends th^t the ^ole matter rests in an account stated 
between the parties, in i?^oh the amount of plaintiff's claim 
was stated in plaintiff's etatement rendered defendant as the 
aaount due plaintiff, that such statement retained by defendant 
without objeotion worked an accord and satisfaction, and that 
the court ooramitted error in allowing a witness to refresh his 
recollection from a memorandum which had not been prepared by him. 

The letter objeotion we think is without merit, as the 
witness did not testify from the memorandum shown him, which 
meraoraadum simply served the purpose of refreshing the witness's 
recollection regarding the matter about which he testified. Such 
method of refreshing a witness's recollection is recognized as 

lawfBl. 320V111 Kis^ Co. y. Cassia y. 876 111. 462; Brau.r T. 
imm&. 211 111. App. 634. lae rule is stated 1^ the 0«al4, 


.'0 l>ori:;>-«' . 

case to be that "A witness can testify only to suoh facts as 
are within hie knowledge and recollection, hut he is permitted 
to refresh and aeeist hie memory hy the use of a written inatru- 
raent, memoraQdum or entry in a book, and it is not necessary 
that the writing should haye been made by the witness himself 
or that it should have been an original writing, provided that 
after inspecting the record he can speak to the facte from his 
own recollection. Neither is it necessary that the writing thus 
used should itself be admissible in evidence. •• The objection 
made on this point therefore fails* 

Plaintiff and defendant were both dealers in stone. 
The account of plaintiff in suit was for stone sold by pledLntiff 
to defendant with credit items for cash and freight and for 
certain other allowances. Defendant's claim of set-off is for 
stone sold by i\ to plaintiff and delivered more or less to third 
parties on the order of plaintiff, less credit for cash, freight, 
cash allov/ancee and credit accounts for stone bought by plaintiff 
of defendant. 

We think the jury might reasonably find from the evi- 
dence that the statements rendered by plaintiff to defendant did 
not cover or pretend to cover or contain the items of Btone 
bought by it from defendant or for stone shipped by defendant 
to third parties on plaintiff's order. Furthermore, they might 
further find firom the evidence that plaintiff's books did not 
contain credits t9r all the stone purchased from defendant and 
that the statements rendered did not contemplate such trans- 
actions in their entirety, nor that plaintiff intended, in the 
rendering of said statements, to have them work an accord and 





■?;:f?c r^l^st^:i-n 

rc TCT': 

•r--7 fj-r! 


eatiefaotlon betweea itself and the defendant. 

The fact that . defendant did not demur to or ohallenge 
the oorreotnees of suoh stateraents the Jury might readily con- 
clude arose from the taot that so far as the items themselves 
were concerned they were in the main correct. This, however, 
would not preclude defendant from rendering a statement to 
plaintiff and colleoting for stone i?^lch it had furnished plain- 
tiff or delivered to third prirties upon its order. These accounts 
hetween the parties covered quite a long period of time. Defen- 
dant's account started April ZO, 1914, with its last credit item 
May 29, 1916, and its last dehit item the last of November, 1916, 
while plaintiff's account coimnenoed August 30, 1915, and com- 
cluded February 18, 1916. 

An examination of the instructions touching the doctria* 
of aooord and satisfaction discloses no material ejrror from which 
we can say that the jury was misled as to the application of the 
doctrine of acoord and satisfaction to the facts in evidence. 
An accord and satisfaction contemplates a bona fide dispute be- 
tween the parties. Ob ermeyer v. Farms Co . , 199 111. App. 568. 
Ho Buoh dispute appears ttom the evidence in this record. 
Furthermore, there must have been a tender to constitute an 
acoord and satisfaction and an acceptance with the understanding 
that the amount accepted is in full payment of all accounts 
between the parties* 

All the evidence considered and the law applicable 
thereto, the verdict and judgnent seems to do justice between 
the parties. Ho such error appears in procedure as would 
warrant this court in reversing the judgment and ordering a 



new trial where the merits of the case are so manifestly 
on the side of defendant. 

The judgment of the Municipal Co art is affirmed. 


Dever and McSurely, JJ. , concixr. 


114 - 25885. 



Plaiatiyf in Frror, y 





j^ ot%.e -^^ 


The judgment in the record le of nil capiat and for 
oost«, and plaintiff assigns as error for reversal the 
raling of the trial court in sustaining the demurrer of 
defendant to the replication of plaintiff to defendant *s 
third plea. There were la the trial court two oases which 
were consolidated for hearing, and the abstract shows the 
pleadings in^but one of them. 

There does not seem to be any contention but what 
the limitation plea was good unless it was avoided by the 
arerraents of the replication, which is in confession as to 
the truth of the plea, but there is an attempted avoidance 
of its effect by a statement of facts which, it is contended, 
avoids the effect of such limitation. 

This case falls within the logic and reasoning of 

PhoeniiK Ins . Co . v. Lebcher . 20 111. App. 450, in which the 

court said: 

"The clause in the policy sued on which limited the 
time for bringing suit thereon to within twelve months 
nezt after the flats of the fire from which the loss 
occurs, is B valid ancl binding agreement between the 
parties, and furnishes a legitimate defense to the 
company where oait is not brou^t within the time limited, 
unless it appears thtit the company has waived the limi- 
tation or has estopped itself £rom asserting such 


defense lay holding oat reasonable hopes of an adjust- 
ment and settlenent wlthox^t suit, sufficient to 
actually deteif the claimant from bringing suit until 
after the expiration of the time limited. Peoria 
Marine Ins. Co. v. Whitehall, 25 111. 466. 

The mere pendency of negotiations daring a part 
of the period of limitation, conducted in good faith, 
with a view to a comprcwiise, is no waiver of the 
limitation and will not estop the company from setting 
up the defense. Gooden v. Amoskeag Fire Ins. Co., 
'do 'S, H. 73; May on Insurance, sections 486-488, and 
oases olt4A." 

However, in the Instant esse nothing in the plea 
set up deterred plaintiff from commencing suit within the 
limitation period, for the suit was comraenoed in apt time. 
Ihe difficulty arose in the filing of a new declaration and 
abandoning the original one after the expiration of the 
limitation, which new declaration stated a new cause of 

It is said that as to the suit in which there is no 
abstract the limitation clause of the policy had not run. 
In the state of the record, there being no abstract of the 
pleadings in tliat oase, we are unable to say whether or no 
such contention is well taken. As said by this and the 
Supreme court in numerous cases, the abstract is the plead- 
ing of the parties and sufficient must appear therein to 
support the errors assigned, and a court of review will not 
look te the record for reasons to reverse a judgment where 
no such reasons appear from the abstract. 

Finding no error calling for a reversal of the judg- 
ment of the Circuit court, it is affirmed. 


Dever emd MoSurely, J J. , concur. 

•.:;i. t>i.. 

181 • 259S3 

\ Appellant, 

vnm> K. Bis|.Tim. 

\ Appell*«. 

FRFT3 E. BKI,T39|, 






219I.A. 642 


The parti f 8 to the bill and cross-bill in this caea 
are husband and wife. Complainant » the wife, filed her bill for 
separate maintenance grounded upon the desertion of defendant and 
that she was liTing separate and apart fr ca» her husband without 
her fault. Defendant answered thia bill and filed his cross-bill 
•>skinK for divorce on the grounds that hla wife had been guilty 
of improper relations with other men, naming one of them, and that 
she frequtnted public dances* cabarets, public restaurants, and 
other places of a notorious cirmr^cter with the aforesaid named 
man and also with other men. Other chargei of improper conduct 
were made and desertion by the wife charged, Kany c/iarges liie- 
vlse were mnde against nis mother-in-law, <ihom he accused of 
wrangling, nagging, abusing and finding fault with him. 

The defendant in both the bill and cross-bill filed *» 
answer denying the material charges made each against the other. 
There was a decree on the cross-bill divorcing the parties for 
complainant's desertion, and a disiilssal of the original bill 

7W 9t9itt 

for aepamte maintenano*. tttm which decrees the wife proae- 
out«8 this appea.1. 

Notwithstanding the serious chf*rge8 of infidelity 
Baade by the huaband against his wife, no atteaipt wis laade to 
prove any on' of such charges, but tiie husband reliefl upon th« 
wife's alleged desertion for the atatutory period as grounds 
for relief under hio orosB-bill . The learned chancellor found 
thP. t the desertion wms that by the wife of the husband, not 
conversely, as the wife ccntended. This we think vms manifestly 
contrarv to the great preponderance of the proofs. 

It appears that at the tiae of the alleged deser- 
tion the parties lived ^vlth the wife's mother; that the husband 
CPEne hoB>e on the night of August 15, 191^, packed his clothes 
into his grip, taking the wedding ring from his 'vife, and on 
going out said to his wife's mother, *#ftll, mother, I will see 
you later on.* After this tiAe the husband made no effort to see 
his wife and did not contribute to her support until an order for 
temporary alixnony was made against hia. He made no attempt to 
provide a hoiae for hin wife other than his mother-in-law's. 
It appears that the wife's mother was inclined to be a little ir- 
ritwble when not well, as the wife admitted in her testimony; but 
It is not contradicted that on the whole the iaother-in-law was a 
source cf great help and assistance to her daughter and her daughter's 
husband; that when first married the husband was in rather bad 
financial circumstances and that the mother-in-law fvirnished 
shelter for him and hia wife, charging hira but three, four and 
five dollars a week for the board and lodging of himself and wife. 

There is no prref worthy of belief thot the wife's 

mother was guilty of any reprehensible conduct toward the defendant, 
the cross complainant, yurthermore, complainant made several bona 

fid <> effort* to induo* h«r husband to reauaif the marital relation. 
She offered several tinea to live with nim and requeated him to 
return to her. There vera seTaral prooeedinga in the court of Do* 
aeatic Helationa in which ocmplainant sought to haye her huaband 
return to her, hut without success, E« flatly refused on these 
occasions to resune the marital relntion, and aside from hi9 claiia 
of desertion there is no evidence in the record of any misconduct 
or unwifely actions on the part of complainant. There were thraa 
ttniispeaohed witnesses, including the late lir. Charles Arnd, a 
reputable lawyer of the Chicago bar at the time, to the effect 
that oonplainant rsquested hex husband to return to her and of* 
fered to live with hiai as his wife, anU that he absolutely refused, 
sayinf;, "It is too late; it i& too lat«i; i cannot live with her any 

A correct solution of the questions of fact in this 
record clearly sustains the Rveru.ent of coesplainant's bill of her 
husband's desertion without any cpuae created by her, and ahe is 
therefore entitled to prevail and to nave a decree entered in her 
favor for a separate maintenfunce as prayed in her bill. 

The decrees dismissing the bill of coaiplaint for want 
of equity and granting a decree of divorce to the husband on his 
cross-bill nre wrong. These decrees are therefore reversed and 
the cause is remanded with directions to the Superior court to en- 
ter a decrae granting eomplainafit separate maintenance from her 
husband, as prayed for in her bill, diasjlssing the cross-bill of the 
husband for vmnt of equity. Hnd including in the decree such allow- 
ances for alimony and solicitors' fees as the necesaities of the wifo 
■ay require and in accord with the ability of the husband to furnish, 

Dever and Sf'cSurely, JJ,, concur , 



£64 - ;&60&6. 


\ /t 

I. P. BEAT, \ ) / 

Appellaat, ) / 

\ ) pmhL mm wmicivki cows 

S y Of CHItAfiO. 


^^u..h 219I.A. 64 3 


7hl« l8 tuei Jbppeal by plftlatlff from a judgiwat of 
nil capiat ©ntareA on n finding of the trial jsdg«, to idiom 
the oaaii»« was 6ub«lttoA for trial by figrooment of tha partita* 

Tha parties to thla action wera inear»Qoa broker a 
In tha offioa of Marsh ^ MaLamiaQ, Inaoranoe ngonta In 

It Is the oontentlan of plaintiff tlvit In December, 
1916, he proourat for Aefendaitt the btialneea of Inaarlng 
the antomobllee of the paaklng honae of Armour & Company 
aeattereA all over the United States at points where they ';on- 
daoted their bnalnass. Pefendaat at this time wrote most of 
the Inaoranee for the ArtBoar Company but did not write any 
aatoraoblle Insuranoe for thoa; that as o:»ipensatlon for this 
service plaintiff clalns defenaant agreed to divide co'^mlsslons 
paid for anch atttemeblle iniiuraaoe. 

While defendant repndiated any le^sal liability to pay 
plaintiff aaythinf, on aoeoant of the Armour Antomobile Imaor- 
anoe, and not^ithatandine defendant olp.lf&s that plaintiff 
diaelalmed any right to any retnunerati on on oocouat of fnxf 
serrloe he way hare rendered la the matter, still defendant 


9raails«d him mfn mi 4m«-ha3.f per owit of the origlmil 
prMdnas paiA, to h^ p«iA to hin In qoftrtorly iQetaliBints. 

iamn^ othor faeta It Appftsru that on ]>ao«n1»«r 8, 
3.917, plaintiff atar««4 a avlt la the Mmlolpal Court of 
Chie«m« agaiast AefeadnBt, oXalnlag |92S.lfi to tse duo him 
oa Ajmovr aatonoblle laaaraaeo. ^lion AeflBMaat wis aerrod 
with stnttona la this suit ho sotDtei^t plaintiff, arrttgei to 
and did pay him #800 on aoooont, proml8ia« to pay the halanos 
on or before January li, 1919, nhieli, being aeoeptable to 
plaintiff, he promised to dlsadsB the salt. This promise 
he failed to perform* Instead, h« took juAfmeal; a^paiaet 
defoadaat on default day. After reeelTlag payment of the 
judgment in full plaintiff started g«nishse prooeedlags 
against Marsh ii MelaBnan. fie eansed an eaeeoatien on the 
Munioipal Court judpnent to be returned defsadant not firand, 
eto«, at a time irhea he knew defendnat ims daily In the awae 
of flee (ilarsh ^ MoLenaaa) as himself. When the faeta were 
made Jcaonn to the Muaioipal Court in an impropriate motion 
it ordered the judgment aatisfled* 

While many points are diuoussed on the errors asaigned, 
IPS shall oonfine our deoislon as to the meight of the erl denes 
and the lav regarding the applloatlon of the statute of Frauds 
to the oontraet between the parties olalmed by plaintiff. 

& oourt of reriew will be reluotant to dlaturb ths 
findings of fast of a trial judge and will not do so unless 
the reoord elearly shows that sueh fiadlzig la manifestly agalamt 
the weight of the erldenoe. aprlaKor t. Parid Brsdley Mj^. £o., 
191 HI, App. 46; Calyert y. Carpenter . 96 111. 63. 

It is patent that plftlatlff wast dlaor»dit»a by •om* 
•ztr«nely ^Isrlng ofiethioal ooaAuot on hi* p«rt. 

Plaintiff •» «otion» regm-dlne th« Mtmielpal Court 
aalt Agdlast defonaant a» h«r<»inaboTe rooltod wire nost 
dleorodl table to Jiim and affeot adreraely hie eredlblltty. 
Moreover, In mmy vltsa ii«tter« about whloh he teetlfled be 
wa« ooatradloted by the testimony of oredible wltneseee vhoee 
teetlmony was tmlapeaohed* 

If the eimtraot olalmird b; plaiatiff was Talnerable 
agalaat legal attack it waa not etietalaed by ft prepwideraaae 
of the eridenee* 

the ooatentlon of defei»3ant that he only promised to 
pigr plaiatiff fievea imd one-half per oeat of the original 
prenlttiaa ea Axwdur aatonobile laaaraaae waa aastalaed by a 
clear prepondtrtiBee of the eTldenoe, mH the ooatentlon that 
Aefeadaat agroe4 to divide equally hie eenraieaione on all 
iaBaraaae prealiUBa thereafter paid on Artnonr aatonoblle Inaor- 
aace ««a eaeoeeaftilly refuted by a preponderaaee of the eTldenee. 

It ^ppeare that the ooatraot laetween plaintiff and 
defend nnt rf^garding the oo»aiealoas wae to extend from year 
to year so lon^; as defendaat did the Ax*moar anderwrltlng oa 
ita aatomobilea* Sash a ooatraot la elearly wlt^ia the 3tatate 
of SVaada of this state, whloh proTldes that a ooatraot not to 
be perforaed wlthia oae year firem its Baklag is void anless 
aaoh ooatraot shall be la trritlag alined by the party to be 
oharged. Chi^. S9 K. ».; farlor ▼. Soott . 17Q HI. App. 487, 

Seeing no reason in thie record for dlf»tarbiag the 

jnd^eat of the Maniolpal Court, it is affizned. 


XNrrsr sad MaSarely, JJ., eoaetor. 


V / 

S80 - 26092. \ 




Appellanti / 


I/I .^;j^9l.A. 643 


This is a "forcible detainer" suit in whioh both 
parties oleim a right to the poseeseion of the premises 
in (luestion under the fee owner, Mayo Friedherg. 

The plaintiff claims under a written lease from 
the owner for a term commencing October 1, 1919, and end- 
ing September 30, 1920. This lease was offered and received 
in eTidence. At this time defendant was in possession under 
a written lease expiring September 30, 1919, as she admit*. 
A sixty day statutory notice that the term then ended was 
duly served upon defendant in apt time. However, she con- 
tended in the trial court, and so contends here, that she 
had an oral agreement with the rent collecting agent of the 
owner that she might continue in possession until May 1, 1920. 
This agreement was denied by the rent oolleoting agent. In 
the trial court there was a finding and judgqient for plaintiff, 
and defendant appeals. 

There was no denial at the trial that defendant was 
In possession of the preraisee in question. She took the wit- 
ness stand and swore that by an agreement with Lowenstein she 
was entitled to continue in possession until May 1, 1920. 

Moreover, if her story be true that Lowenetein granted her 
an extension of the time of ocoupanoy if she paid ten dollars, 
than, as she admits she did not pay the ten dollars, she has 
not sufficiently complied with the terms of the agreement she 
states as to make it operative. 

Furthermore, there is no evidence that Lowenstein was 
anything more than the agent of the owner to collect rents or 
that he had any aathority to make any agreement to extend the 
tenn of the existant lease. Agency cannot be presumed; when 
Invoked It must be proven, the same as any other fact, in order 
to make it available for any purpose. 

The lease to defendant from the owner vma properly 
admitted in evidence as tending to prove the right of plaintiff 
to possession. The right to possession was the sole question 
to be determined by the court, and as defendant failed to prove 
any right to continue to hold possession as against plaintiff's 
right to such possession, in virtue of the lease in evidence 
frOTi the owner, he was entitled to prevail in the action. 

The Judgment of the Municipal Court la affirmed. 


Dever and Mc Surely, JJ,, concur. 


M4 - £6116. 

Il*LiK0l3, for 
OAK ?\.W. 7BUST 
BAIK, a oerporat 


aiCKS, Tra«t«». JO 
DRXCKS, ?rits%««. KD 


Appellant 8. ) 



7hla i» an action upon an appoal bcmd la the penalty 
of fftfOOC. with the Aeolaration was filed an affldarlt of 
olalm, to iihleh defwidante interposed aoTeral pleaa with an 
affldarlt of merltorlooa defeoue, whioh, on motlost was 
etrlelcen ae not stating faeta irhloh oonetltnted in law a 
defense to the aotlon. Snbeeciaently two aaended affidarlta 
of meritorious defense were sneoesslvely filed by leave of 
court whioh were on motion likewise stricken ns ;£tatine no 
facte whioh oonetituted a atrltorious defense, thsrenpon, 
on notion of plaintiffa, the pleas were eliminated for want 
of a anfficient affldaTlt of merits and a jodipent as hy 
defaolt was entered by the ooort in favor of plaintiff and 
againat defendant for $ft,000 debt and damages #430£.64, debt 
to be disohareed on paym«nt of daam^s and eests. from whioh 
Jnds»ent defendants proeeeate this appeal and ask a roTersal. 

FJrsm the fereeoing recitation it is seen that this 
appeal presents for our determination whether the faots 

»t&t»d in the last 9t said thret afflAATlts ooaetltutea In 
law a m«ritorious d«f«iui« to the aotlon ooaated ujxm. la tlie 
deolaratloa of plaintiff. 

the errors asalf^ned are embraoed within the rulings 
Of the ooiort etrlking the affidavitei of merits from the files 
cuad alee In striking the pleas and In enteirlne Jud^-meat as in 
oases of def^^t. 

7he bond in salt is the oontraot of the parties, aaA 
whether stfttotory or one given in aooord with the oourse of 
the Qosmoa law. Is eaforolble. 

The anendsd affldaTlt of sprits did not atnte any 
faot& whloh eonutltated a aefeaae, either merltorioos or 
legal, to the boi^ In salt, but on the contrary stated many 
faota whloh we^*e In thiimselTes eoaply aoffloient to support 
the aotlon and ^^ostlfy a Judgosat for plaintiff. It is in 
aooord with approTed prastloe to atrike pleas from the oaoss 
where there ie no affidavit of Hierlts on file, whew an 
affldaTlt of floerlts is strloken beoaus« it laoks faots whloh 
oonstltnte a meritorions defoise to the aotlon the pleas fall 
as a defense and are properly strloken, when the oause Is 
treated as one where no affiaarlt Is f Ued and the pleas are 
likewise otrloken wlthoat regard to their enfflolenoy as 
pleas stating a good defense. In saoh state of the reoord 
It le the oorreot praotloe to enter Judgment as In oases of 
default. Bed dig v. Looaey . £09 111. App. 418 j Crsaar ▼. 
Comae re lal Aesoolatlon . 260 111. 616. In Tire ir. tone '-^Ire Cp* t. 

BXB^MK* ^'^^ ibid 132, it la said: 

"Where an affidavit of merits Is Insufflolent, It 
is proper praotloe to strike it from the files and the 


plaintiff ie then «iatitl«a to JGagsient an in oa«e of 
default. After nn sffirlaylt of rg«rlts Jiae b«oa 
etrickoa fron the files it is not nooeasary to strike 
the pleas from the files, although the pr notice is 
not inqproper and is ooamon.** 

It is serioaslj^ oonteaded by defenaants that the 
^'iTin^ of the bond in suit was proeursd by dnrsss. Howey«>r« 
there is no warrant in the re oar d for holding that the bond 
was prooured by doress. in short, the olaia is nsade that a 
former bond was giT«n whioh «a& regarded as insofficient and 
a new bond was rsQaested and the one in sttlt giT«a. Bat, 
forsooth, said bond, it is oentended, ivonld not ha to been given 
bat for the threat made that the trial Jndge would not sifn 
and seal the bill of exceptions in the oass onless a new bond 
was given and that dsfendants yielded to saoh threat and gave 
the bond in suit. In the first plaee, the trial judge e««ld 
have been oompslled by mandamus to settle and sign a bill of 
exceptions if he arbitrarily and unlawftolly refilled to do so 
upon presentation, furtheraore, the reo it at ions of the bond 
hare not been and oannot, under the law, be denied. 7hs Judg- 
msnt appealed frora is oorrSetly reel ted in the bond, the 

Supreme Court reviewed the jud^ went of the Cocmty Conrt afpealst 

f^en and defendants hare/the benefit of the n^jpeal by obtain- 
ing the review of the Jadg!i!ient agiainat thsm by the Suprstoe Court, 
to which tribunal tlMi appeal was prayed. 

There is nothing la the bond that; oontravenes publlo 
polioy. It was voluntarily {riven at the tine and defendants 
have enjoyed all the benefits of delay in the exeoution of the 
jud^iment appenled f^on and the review of the Supreme Court 
thereof, l-ritohett v. rhe Xeople . 6 111. 616. These were 


all tlM benefits defvodants 8ou|rht. thea* beoefita w«r« 
obtained In Tlrtoe of tha bond. Taeiy oannot noTr b« ti«ard 
to repadiat© their oontraot in the verity of which they 
receired the benefit of the privilege of a review of the 
niai Prlaa inAgrnrnt, Mj^c v. The People . B6 111. 3£9. Aa 
the 00 art aMd in Xotlte v. The Title Qattrantce ^ 3arety Co.. 
191 111. Apx^. 56£, 130 a&y we here: 

'*The Jad^eBt debtor iwed the bond here aued 
on to procure a review by thla court of Ihe judgment 
agflkinet him, and the aurety by Joining in the bond 
enabled him to do ao, and having obtained all the 
benefit of the bona they ahomld be eatopped from 
denying that it la a binding obi Ig at ion.** 

There la no aerlt in any of defendiutita' oontentlona, 
and the reoord of the Ciroult Court being free from revere ibla 
9Tr0Tt ita Jadgnent la afflrT«>d. 


Dover and Me Surely, J J. , concur. 

64 - 25854 




ilain^iff in Krror, 




Bef endan^ in I'/or. 


219 I.A, 643 


Karion };, Davenport filed her bill of oompjaint 
in tLe Superior court of "oolc ;;ounty June ]2, 191c:, in which 
Bhe ch&rgfid her nusbpnd, John I.ouis ,r;avenport, with desertion, 
July i3, 1916, John Louis I'avenport filed his answer thereto, 
in which he denied that he wEiS or had been guilty of desertion 
and charged complainant- with adultery. Thereafter defendant 
filed a croBB-bill feud later a ouppleffiental cross-bill, in 
which he all^iged tixa i he i & a resident o.i Cot:k County and has 
been a, resident of the atste of illincis i'cr thirty years last 
past. GoxB lainant filed an answer to this EUpplemental cross- 
bill, in which ehe admitted oro so-complainant "is an actual 
resident of Cook County and ia and has been a resident of the 
State of Illinois for thirty years last past. 

The issues made up by the pleadings were submitted 
on evidence to a jury, which returned a verdict finding the com- 
plainant not guilty of adultery and that, compTainant was living 
separate and ppart froc: defendant pnd oroas-complainant ./ithout 
fault on her part. The Jury also returned a verdict which 
found the complainant, larion E, Davenport, guilty of an attempt 
to kill cross-complainant, as charged in his cross-bill. A de- 
cree was entered in the cause avmrding defendant and oross- 
complainnnt a decree of divorce. The decree recites inter alia : 

>C;iiCi» - 






"The court finds that it hps jurisdiction of the 
parties hereto ond the subject-matter hereof, and that said 
verdict ia well founded and ia resionsive to the is;.;uee and 
supported by the proofs offered in open court upon the trial 
of said cAuue, and thHt thf, ot-id i arion j.)avenport did, on tc- 
wit. Kovember 23, 1918, make a willful atte pt to take the 
life of the dei enciant and ore ss-ccciplainant, joim Louis 
Davenport, subsequent to her unarriage witii him, by means 
uhcwing njalice, tu-j.'it, by means of e. loaded pistol v/hich 
she fired at him, as is alleged in the suprlei/iental cross- 
bill heretofore filed by the orosa-oouiplainant in the above 
entitled cause," 

complainant and cross-defendant seeks by iT^rit of 
error to reverse this decree for the reasons, as asserted, first, 
tnat the record does not disclose that cross-complainant was a 
resident of the 3tate of Illinois for one whole year next be- 
fore filinf^ his oross-bill of complaint; and, second, that the 
verdict of ttie jury ^?as insufficient in tl^iat it failed tc recite 
that the coinplalnant had atteiapted to take the life of cross- 
complainant by means showing malice. 

The suppl. <933ental crrss-bill alleges that the cross- 
complainant •♦had been a reslaent of the state of Illinois for 30 
years last past," and the answer filed thereto by the complain- 
ant adsnlts tnat cross-coraplainant has been a resident of the 
btate of Illinois for "30 years last past,** The decree entered 
in the cause sp cifically recites that the court had jurisdiction 
of the parties and of the subject matter. 

The evidence submitted tc the ,iv.ry is not preserved 
by either party to the litigation. The issues wre, however, 
tried before a jury, and such being the fact it was not incumbent 
upon the party in whose favor the decree was entered to preserve 
the evidence admitted on the trial. 

In the case of Lyons v. I^ons , 272 111. 329, the 
Supreme court said: 

"It is insisted tYmt it does not appear from any 
recital in the decree that appellant has resided in the ytate 
of Illinois more than one year before filing her bill; that 


■tai; i as 

:':i4S^ Jtm- 

this was necessary to pive the court jurisdiction, and. that 
the recital in the decree that the court had jurisdiction of 
the euhjGCt natter rnd of the pertios is wholly insufficient. 
Upon that question relience is principtlly plpced upon 
BeckT rnher^' v. P r-ckT enb erg > 232 111. 120, That case held 
That such recitals of juriEdicticn were not sufficient to 
sustain a decree v7here thn evidence is not preserved in the 
record. In that case, however, there was no admisaicn in 
the anawer that ccnplainant had been a resident of 111 inoie 
jHore then a yctxr ccntinucusly before filing the bi'il. The 
bill alleged complain.^r.t was a resident of Cook fiounty and 
had been sjn actual resident of the State of Illinois con- 
tinuously more than one year preceding the filing of the bill. 
The answer -"idmittrd cr.r;'r1 Rln«nt had been a resident of the 
State of Illinois »for more than one year last past.' The 
court saij t.'..e acswir ^f'9s not -ri prT^inelcn thn,t ecinplr'inaiit 
had been a resident of Il''inois one wholia year nexL before 
filine; the Lill, in the case under conaideration the an- 
swers to the original and amended bills ad;ait appellant had 
been a reaident of Illinois 'for roanv years last ppst.' Thig 
is to all intents and purposes as effective as would heive 
been an adiuxsoion that sue had been a reaident of Illinois 
more than one year continuously just before filing her bill," 

To the first point made it may be answered, there- 
fore, that the admission in the pleadings of complainant pre- 
clude her from raising the question of the court's jurisdiction 
of cross-ccmplainant, and that in that the case was tried before 
a jury it 77ill he presumed that sufficient evidence ivas intro- 
duced in support of the ve^'lict of the jury and the uecree of 
the court. 

The supplemental cross-bill charged that complainant 
had unlawfully and maliciously attempted the life of cross- 
complainant with a pistol by attempting to shoot him v/ith the 
intention of so doing and to wilfully arid maliciously taks his 
life. The verdict of the jury found that defendant had attempted 
to kill cross-complainant as charged in the crosa-bill, v/hich 
recites that complainant made a willfva and malicious attempt to 
take the life of defendant and cross-complainant "by means showing 
malice, to-wit, by means of a loaded pistol which she fired at 


In the caae of Ber g v. li«rg , Sao ill, 209, the 3u- 

preii'je court said: 

'^ in cas»B where tiic partieci ar<i ftntilled to a 
trial by jury the rule is different, and the evidence doeo 
not aave to be tnus preaervea. .'hia iiaa been held to be 
tru« in cases of divorce, and formerly in casee cf mechanioa' 
liens, the preauinption in such cases b^dng in Ta^cr of the 
verdict until it is successfully impeached in some .node pro- 
vided by law, Becker v. ;:' pci cer , 79 111, &3ii; Thatcher v. 
That cher, 17 id. 66; Tewis v. P.cee , 82 id, 574." 

The verdic-c of the jury finds that coiuplalnant 
attempted to teJce the life cf croBS-complainaBt as charged in 
hia cross-bill, and the chiirgc in tun cross-bill la thAt th« 
RsgaiOt v/as mad© maliciously. The decree recites that the ?-.s- 
saul t ipas made by means which showed nialice as chariisd in the 

The points made against the validity of tJ.e decree 
are extremely technical s.nd it is our view tiiat on the r»-rccrd 
before us tVie decree rupht to be affirmed. 


Holdom, i\ J., and McSurely, J., concur. 


V rs 

91 - 25862 



V3. • 

DGKALB J. 0»^)NKEIX et al , 

befendants. \ 





GEORGE R. KARTIH, iieceiver/ 

219I.A, 643 



This is an appeal by John Guskay from a decree of 
the Circuit coiirt of Cook County entered June 13, 1919, which 
•et aside and vacated a prior order of the court approving a 
final report of the receiver and which disallowed the receiver 
the a^m of $737.21 which had been credited to him in his final 
report. The receiver appealed froci the decree of June 13, 
1919, to this court and the appeal m.n decided in case Iio. 
^y)p5916 (opinion not yet reported.) 

"-'-^ A part of the history of the litigation is set 

forth in the opinion filed in tJriat case, and it will not be 
necessary to state here more than the fact that Guskay insists 
that the decree erroneously allowed the receiver certain 
credits which it is claimed were unwarranted by law and the 
facts of the case. 

It is our opinion that the decree must be affirmed. 

The evi (ence introduced on the hearing does not ap- 
pear in the record. The decree of June 13, 1919, sets forth findings 
of fact in support of the conclusions of the chancellor, and ws 


■i> /u0'<i*i:i 

\ ^bfi^',. 

nn «« 


. - V 

are not permitted to question the correctness of suoh findings of 
fact and conclusions in the absence of the imrldenoe introduced 
on the trial. 

The decree of the Circuit court will therefore be 


Holdom, I, J., and McSurely, J., concur. 


157 - 26928 






iXalntlff brought »ult against def en(i.<.^?it/iii tiae 

Municipal oourt of Cxxicago. 

The litigation grew out of a contract of empley- 
ffient entered into between plaintiff arid def en slant December 21 « 
1917, under which defendant «aaiployed plnlntiff pb a apl ftBtnan to 
aell soap, manufactured by defendant, in Ccoic, L^ke, Kane and iM- 
Jage Counties, Illinois. 

In a atatefnent of claisn filed by plaintiff it ia 
•11 (^ed that there was 'lup him at the tiiBe auit was brought for 
coMBlsaions the aura of $3,551.82, In defendant's affidavit of 
defense it is stated thut the parties to the contract entered 
into a subsequent oral agreement to the effect that certain ex- 
penses incurred by defendant in assisting plaintiff in the sale 
of its pr-oduct in tiie territory mentioned were to be chargeable 
to the plaintiff. These exienaes, it iu alleged, aaiounted to a 
total 8Ui?i of $5,80(3, wjiich more than offset the plaintiff's claim 
against defendant. 

The original written contract, which it ia claimed 
was fflodified by a subsequent parole agreement, contain** the fol- 
lowing provision; 

"There is to be nc wxpenoe fcr a ivortising cr 
sales help of any i.ind to be borne by either of us unless 
by autual agreement in writing," 




, \Oi44rt 





Ji oJni 



. ttiinimt% 






:noi:atv««f sn^ 

MX, apencsr, sales manager of defend&nt, teatlfied 
that in a conYevaation witJu plaintiff in January, lvl< , he, the 
witness, stated that ^t would be necessary to hire special sales- 
aien; that plaintiff at this time agrec^d that in return for the 
promises cf defendant tc stand the expense of certain adTertieing 
he would pay whatever expense was incurred in eaploying these 
additional sales'sen. 

Mr, Bell, for the defendant, testified to certain 
statefiients which tended to prove Rdmissiona by plaintiff that 
snlaries for salesRien were to be chRVfred to hisi. 21aintiff»B 
testimony directly contradicted that of Vt» Jtpencer. ilaintiff 
denied that anything was said in the course of the nonveraation 
with Jr. Bpenoer concerning either the expanses to be incurred 
for salesmen or adTertising. }!e stated that he was never In- 
formed that he would be charged with any expenses as testified 
to by ?r, 3T>encer, Correapondence between the plaintiff and de- 
fendant w. s introduced whicti it iy asserted tends tc ocrroborate 
the testinsony of the plaintiff, Jud^i^nent vrse entered in favor 
of the plaintiff for the h\X!1x of :^2425,24 and d«f€ndant appeals. 

It ia urged on behalf of defendant that the jud<.gi)ent 
of the court is against the wpif^nt of the 'Evidence. The defendant 
attenipted to abo'v that the written agreement hnd "been Modified 
by a mutual parole agreement of the parties. The burden, then, 
rested ijpon it to 3how thnt the written egreement had been so 
modified. Croft v. pervins . 174 111. 637. 

There is a direct contradiction in the evidence 
concerning the alleged parole agreement, f.r, aperxer and the 
plaintiff directly contradict each other. There is some evidence 
in the record which tends to corroborata the atatecients of each. 

Under these circuiaatancea the trial jude«» who heard and saw th« 


»*iJ "fc 

witn«B8e«, wna in a much better pOBitJLon to judge cf the weight 
of tiie evidence tiian is thia court. 

There ia nome evidence tending to support the 
poeitiOM of sac:-: p?«rty to the euit, and we are unable to say 
that reversible error was ootninitted in finding the issues for the 

The Judgment of the Municipal court is affirmed. 

Holdoro, T , J,, and )-e Surely, J., concur. 

176 - 25950 


DAVID L. l&OSS, (icing business 



klTTELMASt doing bu8in€«s as 
iflTTELlsAS BR03., 





plaintiff recovered a jud^ent in the Municipal 
ccurt of Chicago against the defendant for the sum of #150, and 
defer dan t appeals. 

Suit was brought upon a contract dated New York, 
October 15 » 1917, under which the defendants by S. kittelman 
agreed to purchass 5000 pounds of granulated egg yolk powder 
from plaintiff for 43 cents a pound. The goods were to be 
shipped to defendants at Chicago at a time prior to January 
31, 1918, at the buyer's option, and payment was to be made 
therefor net cash five days after their arrival. The contract 
also provided that all claims in connection therewith were tc 
%e presented within seven days from the date of the receipt of 
the goods, and that any differences between the parties were 
to be adjusted by arbitration in New York. 

The case was tried before a jury. No evidence was 
introduced on behalf of the defendant, llaintiff 's evidence dis- 
closes that after the contract /as entered into the plaintiff, on 
January 7, 1918, wrote to defendants asking them to "advise us 
vtien you want us to have the goods shipped tc you, as we have 
these ready in stock available at your order, the time for 
shipment expires on the 31 at of this month and would thereforo 
kindly request you to give us instructions as early as possible." 

oe«es - avi 

Defendants seem tc have paid no attention to this letter and 
plaintiff at the end of January shipped the goods to Chicago, 
drawing a sight draft which, with the bill of lading, accompanied 
the goods tc Chicago. 130 response was made to plaintiff by de- 
fendants either after the goods had arrived in Chicago or lAien 
the eight draft had been presented to them for payment on two or 
three occasions, until karoh 2, 1918, when defendants wrote 
plaintiff a letter in wiiich, for the first time, they intimated 
their objection to receiving the goods, giving as their reason 
that plaintiff had shipped the goods **in sight draft against 
B, I," In this letter defendants stated that they did not need 
Biiy egg yolk powder at the time, but that they would accept the 
goods at a price of forty>one cents a pound, the then market 
price in Chicago* 

We do not think there is much merit in the claim 
that the evidence dof>s not sustain the judgment of the trial 
court. It is undisputed that plaintiff laade every reasonable ef- 
fort to deliver the goods in accordance with the ternis of the con- 
tract. It is true that a sight draft with bill of lading attached 
accompanied the goods to Chicago, but it was only after this draft 
was presented several times to the defendants that the excuse was 
made for the first time that the goods were not to be paid for 
until five days after their delivery. Me think that on the whole 
evidence the court was warranted in disregarding this defense. It 
is our opinion also that there is no merit in the contention that 
plaintiff failed properly to prove the amount of damages he sus- 
tained by reason of defendant's breach of the contract. 

Some valid objection is made to certain of the in- 
structions given by the court to the jury. Hut in view of the 
character of the evi lence th«» instructions given were not so er- 
roneous as to authorize a reversal of the judgment , 

The jud£^ent of the i^unicipal court is affirmed. 

HoXdom,p.j.,and McSurely, J., concur. 


187 - 25959 '\ 


▼ s. 







4 4 


Judgment wits entered for |23.25 against defendant in 
the Mimic ipal court of Chicago, which he seeks by this appeal to 

Suit was brought by plaintiff on a promissory note 
dated November 13, 1916, payable to the State street Pathephone 
Company. The note was executed by defendant and it provided for 
the payment by him of |;35.oo, $10. CO down and the balance at the 
rate of $5.00 a month. This note was endorsed by the payee and 
was delivered by him to the Bnpire aecurity Co., which in turn 
delivered it to the Port Dearborn Trust & savings Bank, which 
transferred it to the plaintiff. 

The abstract of record fil d in this court gives us 
no inforraation as to what the suit is about. It merely shows 
that a statonent of claim with affidavit was filed by plaintiff; 
that trial was had without a jury and judgment entered for plain- 
tiff, we have held in numerous cases that failure to present to 
us, in compliance with the rules of this court, n proper abstract 
of record is of itself sufficient to .Tarrant an affimiance of 
the judgment. )?or this reason, if for no other, the judgment 
must be affirmed, we have, however, examined the evidence as 
shown by the abstract of record, and it is our opinion that no 
error was committed by the trial Judge which would authorise a 
reversal of the judgment, so far as the evidence shows, plaintiff 

was an innocent holder of the note and received it in due course. 
Evidence offered by defendant wae excluded which it is said would 
have ahown payment in full of the note to the payee named therein. 
If we assume this to \>e true, it does not militate against the 
right of the plaintiff to recover on the note. It is . ur opinion 
that the affidavits filed in support of the motion for a new 
trial were insufficient. 

The jud^j^tuent of the Municipal court will be affirmed. 


Holdom« F, J., and i^o surely, J,, concur. 

( ^t?:; 

211 - a8«75 




v Appellant a, 


▼ 8. \ • 


A^bCCIATIOH, » cor-fltratlcn, / ) 

A-i«llee./ ) 



2l9l.i^- 644 


jAceb FAdara and £:atildft Kadera filed their bill 
of ccrcplaint in the iiuperior oourt of Cook county in wiiicto they 
prayed tiaat the defendant, i orava Building and hoan Association, 
he decreed to exeoute to oo&:^lainant a release of a certain mort- 
gage on real eatate giTen to aeoure the payment of a principal 
sue of $l«400t ^7i-4leh eoffiplainants had borrowed froM defendant. 
The traniiactions which resulted in the execution and delivery of 
the iBcrtgage occurred during the years 1914 and 1915, Joseph A. 
Cerny was secretary of defendant froo; the date ef its organisa- 
tion in 1911 to January, 1»17, and he was also during this tima 
engaged on his oen account doing a real estate business at 
2330 tiouth sawyer avenue, Chicago. Bef«nd»nt»s office was lo- 
cated at 23ot/ South Keman avenue, a distenee of about one-fourth 
of a mile from Cerny's real estate office. The evidenca introduced 
on the trifll tends tc prove tiiat Cerny had custody of defendant's 
securities, papers and records, it was a part of his duties as 
secretary to draft oort^ages, notes, rel <»se de ds, tc., for 

defendant, and generally he conducted negotinticns rrith stock- 
holders and others doing business witu it. 

under defendant's by-laws Cerny was required "to 
preserve the records ef the Association, to keep its accounts 


by a dlouTE»l« entry •y»tera pretocribed by th« board, tc collect all 

dues, interest, fines* and other noneya tiiat omy be due the 

Asaooiation and receipt for the aame* paying the fund* collected 

to the Treaeurer at every regular meeting of the board, and taking 

his receipt ti^erefor. "Jointly with the president ue is empowered 

to release A^isociation aortgages when a loan has been repaid in 

full, and upon such release he shall return to the borrower all 

papers held by the Association and appertaining to such loan.** 

section 5 of Article 11 of the by-laws is as follows: 

•The Treasurer shall not receive any aoneys for the 
Association except frcia the; lecretary." 

section 7 of Article 12 provides tiiat • 

"A borrower raay repay a lean at any time, in part 
or full, by {riving thirty (iSC) days notice to the Associfttioa 
of itis intention of so doing,* 

Illinois £itf>tutes provide th»t - 

"Any mebiber who anall have obtained a loan or advance 
on his shares, anvl who aliall have given real estate as security, 
nay at any tine upon giving thirty days* previous notice in 
writing repay %ixe sasBe, 

« * # -i* i« * 

"irovided, that all sottl events iisade in periods in« 
tervening between stated monthly meGtin^u of the directors 
shall be made as of the date of the stated xucntiUy meeting 
next succeeding any such settlmwent ,"* ♦ + * (Kurd's !;, S,» 
ch, Ski, sec. B5b, 6c; J, k A, Ann, iitat., »ec. H^Li.,) 

The mortgage which was given to secure the payBoeat 
of the loan to complainants was dated Janu««ry 19, 1916. After 
its execution and delivery Jaocb Kadera becasie in arrears in pay- 
ments due defendant and he applied te Cerny, defendant's secretary, 
for a private loan for the purpose of paying off tlie mortgage, 

Cerny applied to one .imidl, who on previous occasions had purchased 
mort.ageB froa> him, tc meke the loan to Ffldera. Soidl agreed to 

accept a mortgage tc be executed by radera and his wife in exchange 

for a mortgage then held by hia which he had purchased fran Cerny, 

The latter aiortgage, bein«i the third aiortgage involved in the 

transaction, was for a sua sixty dollars less than the ataount of 

the second iaortg««« whioh vae «xeouted by Kaderw and his wifs 
for th« purpose of procuring a sufficient sum to pay off tha 
first JCBOrtgage. to make up the difference between the second and 
third mortgages linidl delivered hia personal note to Cerny for 
the sum of S6C, The second nortf^a^e was given to secure the 
paynent of 0l6c>O and was executed ^^ay 13, 1916; this isortgage 
was turned ever ty cerny to iJmidl ftar the third morttjage which 
was executed by one iiusil. This ttJird nortgage was sold by 
Cerny to one i eo/iA, who delivered to oerny nis check for 
$1448.04 in paystent Ui refor. At tJtiia tioie Oerny stated he was 
secretary of the defendant association and that ne would pay 
ooaiplain»nt *s indebtedness to it out cf tue awe received fros 
iecha. SOd&e days after the closing of the transaction* that is, 
after the delivery of tne aeoond »ertgage to inaidl and the sale 
cf the third aiortgage to Techa and th«» receipt of payment there- 
for by Cerny, Jacob j;adera requested Gemy for a release deed 
cf the first mortgage which had been exeeutei to secure the in- 
debtedness to defendant. At this tiae Cerny premised to procure 
the release deed and he delivered a f^^tate-nent to Traders which 
afcewed thst he, Cerny, hpd received the suta of ^48.72 in excess 
of the 81^ due defendant by complainant. This excess amount 
was paid to Radera by Cerny. 

The evi enoe shows that Cerny in January, 1»17, was 
discovered to nave ea«be£zled the money paid tc hia by ■ eoha and 
which w«s intrusted to his> fcr the purpose of paying complainant*! 
indebtedness to defendaitt. on a trial of the iseues coffirlsinants' 
bill was disfiiissed for want of equity, complainants brinn the 
ease to this court by appeal. 

The Material facts of the case do not seaai to be 
In dispute. The evidence shows that when Kadez« siade his ap- 
plication to Cerny for a loan to pay off the indebtedness to 

.Tdwaza ) 

def«ndani., c«rny in hie j?rivate oapaaity had agreed to proour* 
iii« anount neoenaary for Uiia purpo»«. At or Juat before tiie 
time tli« traj-i»aotions were completed ooiaplainfiilits were inaebted 
to defendant in a euoi $46,7;d lees tiian the onrtount p».id to 
Cerny by fecha, and this exoese sum «aa paid by cerny to coa- 
plaln»nt Jacob f:adera. .ieveral mont^ia thereafter It was dia« 
covered that C«rny, in yiolation of his trust* had embezisled 
the money whioh was unquesticnably paid to aim for the purpose 
of extin^ui shins oomplainantn* indebtedness tr defendant; it 
is urfied that Ceamy reoeived this payment as secretary of de- 
fendant and within the apparent soope of his authority as sueh. 

It is said tJciat under defendant's by-laws cerny 
had no authority to receive on be/<Alf of defendant any payments 
of money except such as had becoise due to defendant* and 
strictly and teclmioally this iu the lan(.-uage of the by-laws. 
Ve are inclined to think, however, that under the authority of 
eases decided by ^he supreme court iz would be a too narrow con- 
struction of these by-laws to hold that a secretary of a build- 
ing and loan association acting under by-lnwa such as these in 
evidence would have power to aocfpt payre<Kt en behalf of jiia 
principal only when sxioh debts had become due in a strictly 
legal B«n»e. Cerny was clothed with apparent- auti lot ity to 
negotiate toana raade by defendant. The evidence snows that 
the ooxapl^inDnts were in arrears in payments due defendant at 
the tiin'5 that Cerny received on coaplainants' account stifficient 
money to pay the acafUnt due under the first Piortf;8g<?, and we 
think it was well wituin tixe apparent scops of cerny's au- 
thority under the circufiiatanoes to accept on beiialf of defendant 
payment in full of compluinants* indebtednesa to defendojut. 

In the o»s« of trairic iitate Loan Aaacciaticn v. 


Kubllng , 170 111, E4G, the ;Hupreme court aaid: 

*COM£on knowl«<i«e of the gonerml conduct and aian- 
«€«n«nt of associationa known a« building aadooiations showa 
that in the majority of onsee the 3ecr"«t«ry of auch an asso- 
oiaticn hao largely the control of the details of tts busi- 
ness, he Ken«rnlly po sseaoes the confidence of its sieiiibera 
and patrons, who largely rely on him," 

In the case of } r»irie o t ate Loan Aasociation ▼. 

Corrle, 167 111, 414» ttie aupreiue Court said: 

^It i« well known that the members of such aaso- 
exations do, and are practicaJly cciapoll ed to, rely upoa 
the secretary for info caiat ion in regard to Utexr rights as 
stocki^oldera, and we ti;ini: the autfociation eliould be held 
responsible for liis oonduot In offioe. In thit> case we are 
of the opinion the court ri£.:htly held tne aauooiation bcond 
by the acts of the secretary," 

The oTidence does not disclose that oonplainants 
kn«fw for several months after they had provided for the payment 
of their obligfttion to the defendant that Cerny had etubessled 
the fiioney which had been intrusted to him for the payment of the 
first luortgage. 

It ia quite tru« that the instant case is different 
in its facts frcos'the Gorrie and ^ublinjj ^ oases supra , yet asid« 
froja the express lanijua^'s of the .y-lawo and the statutes, the 
payment of the first eaortgage to the secretary, though unmatured. 
was such a transaction as would ordinarily be regarded as eomin^g 
within the usual duties of a secretary of a building tmd loan 
association. It way be conceded tiiat Cerny acted in part of the 
transactions referred to as the agont of coiitplainant. xt is 
Clear timt he did not represent defen-oant in procuring the loan 
for coiBplainants ^ich was secured by the execution of the second 
mortgage, it is our opinion, iicvrerer, that he received the .iioney 
paid to him by pecha as the agent of defendant. };e accepted and 
held this money under an ex) resa a^creement to pay off the first 
aortgage, that is, the mcrt^iage securing the Indebtedness to de- 

fendant, .and for this purpose he acted as defendant's ngent. 

It is asserted that defendant connct })9 held to have 
waived a thirty days qptice provision of the by-laws and the 
statutes, because the evicSence in the ease do«s net show that 
defendant ratified the con.'iuct of its agent, or that it had ao* 
tually accepted the payment m^ae by complainants to cerny of 
their indebtedness to defendant. Defendant's by-laws, so far 
as 8J4}vn by the abstract of rricora, inJioaie that Cerny alone 
was authorised to receive iscneye on behalf of the dcfeniiant, 
its treasurer wiua expreaaly prohibited from receiving any r.oneyt 
for defendant except fros the secretary , i30th the statutes and 
the by-laws quoted above provide that any sinmber of tlie defendant 
aseooiatiOR had the rlpht to repa^ a loan nt any time upon giviDgt 
thirtj? days notice in writinf- of an intention tc <lc so; end the 
question to b« detarniined here is idiether defendant's secretary 
could, on defflridont'3 bt^Vialf, waive the giving of this notice. 
It is our opinion that he c^ul 4, and that It wac not incumbent 
upon the ccnsplainnnts to 3how, pfter pajmicnt of th«^ lean to the 
secretary and its receipt by hirn ^ith full knowled|?e of the in- 
tent and puTjsoae of the coaplninanta, thsit the defendant had 
otherwise ratified his action, or that it had actually received 
the payment tsade tc its secretary. 

Thf3 clear nsaning of the by-laws and atetutes is 
that a meaiber of a building association such as defendant could 
repay a loan at any time upon first giving the required thirty 
days notice. The thirty days notice provision was incorporated Jn 
the act and by-laws for the benefit of building: and loan associa- 
tions; it constitutes a limitation on the right of co.'r.plainants 
%a pay the loan. The defendant, of course, through its proper 
representative could have refused payment until such tiae as the 
legal notice should be given; but it could have waived t^iis 


■ M,i 

prlTil«g« and aooopted payai(»it wltiiout notic*, and In exerel»ing 
this right of waiver, frcn the nature of its orf,Rnlz«tion and 
the ohemoter of Its husineSB, it »f«eaiB reaaonable to holi that 
its intention ao tc do would almost n«oe8aarily ba expreaaed by 
the Action of ita Secretary, "rho alone waa authorized to receiTo 
p>»ym«nt8 on ita behalf. 

In the caae of (. ■ olujiibua BuDdin^, and I o n n Aaeooiatiw 
"^ ' '^"rlP't e, 192 111, ia«, relied upon by the defendant, the .su- 
precje court hel f1 that a aeoretary of ft building and loan aasccia- 
tiOB not havinf^ nii*horlty to receive oertpin payaents from ita 
oraBbera and auoh seoretnry not having been hold out by the aa- 
aociation na having' auoh authority, and the aeaoclation not hniving 
received any benefit from such payaenta, it wua not estopped to 
deny ita liability therefor, in the pre»«nt oaae, however, tiia 
eviienoe i» clear that the aaeret&ry did have aut}^>ority and it 
waa hia duty to reoeiive the pay]B>^t mode to hiiB by oomplalnanta, 
aubj<^et only tc the riM^t t^f ^ha defentiant to require, if it aaw 
fit tt do ao, tiiirty daya notxce of the intention to laake the 
payments. Th< evidence ahowe tJaat the paynent waa made to oerny 
in the usual courae of busineaa and ne had both the actual and 
apparent auihorit.v to receive payaent on benalf of defe««iant. 
Afaperb ;^ v. no we , 146 la, 16ic. 

In the caae of jancheater Building and Loan Aeeooia - 
tion V. neardJiley , 7A B. J. i?. 714, the court said: 

"Vhe money rfhich was paid nao not duea, and was not 
paid by a member on account of duea, but aaa paid to satisfy 
a debt duo the aaacciation, , f courae, sue; peynsent must be 
nade to acme ona who is either atecifically or impliedly au- 
t}:iori2ed to receive it." 

The evidence ahowe that the oozapl ainanta acted in 

good faith thrcut^hout th« tranaaction and that they paid defendant 

the full aaiount due it. This payment >wa8 of neeeaaity asade to 

defendant's agent, who had exj.rca8 authority to receive it; that 

he wnbeexled the raoney i« no fault of ooeplRinAnta, and equitably 

ttacy ou^ht net to be oLnrfrnd with hl» dlahonesty. 

In vol, 9, Corpuo Juris, 939, it ia aaid: 

•A pre»crib«d notice of withdrawal Is usn&lly re- 
quired by tiue by-le-»8, but aucii notice need not be in •nting 
unless 00 reouir*»d, and even is>herr> required the asscolatlon 
aiay waive a writtwi amj accept an oral notlee, or It raay 
waive any kind of notice." 

3ch!;iai>oher v. '^olf . 125 IJI. Apj , 81; v:cjrenney v. r.lamond atate 
Loan A tt»Q elation , 15 Del. 557. 

We are Inclined to a^.ree with the contention that 
neither the statutes nor the by-laws prohibited the defendant, 
either exrressl ' or impliedly, froa» snterinj^ mte an ngreeAient 
with the complalnanto thrcvigh its aecretary for a repaynent of 
the loan without giving a thirty daye notice of an intention to 
do »o , 

It is not material that the payss'^nt tc Cerny was 
made at a place other than defendant's office, which was located 
In the rear of a saloon, and which was used by def en lant for its 
weekly meetings, • iralrle Utnte I,can v. I'ubling , 17,' ill, 24'), 
•"he decree of the superior court will be reversed 
and the cause reaianded to thRt court wltn direoticna tc ':;nter a 
decree as i rayed in the bill, 

fITH T.lHlCTlOjqa. 
HOldosi, j , J,, concurs and I£cSure]y. j., dissents. 


210 > 25962 




I. I), ZMAS, \ 



219 I.A. 644 


plaintiff brought suit in the i;unicipal court of 
Chicago agoinat defendant in an action for forcible detainer of 
prenisea owned by plaintiff. Judr^ent was entered against de- 
fendant wJtiioh he seeks to reverse by app«al to this court. 

The complaint filed in the cause deecr bes the 
prenisea in queation as follows: "Apartmi^nt on third floor of 
building known as 4746 Ingleside Are,, Chicago, 111." It is 
insisted that this description is so defective as to warrant 
a reversal of the judipient. The eviaenoe shows that the apart- 
ment in question is located on the ti^iird floor of a three story 
building wiiioxi occuj-ies the single nujuber 4746 Ingleside avenue, 
Chicago. 3o far as the abstract of record shov/s, this objection 
is Btade for the first tiine in tnis court. 

In the case of Haynea et al_. v, jherwin-vVill iaiaf, Co., 
126 111. App. 414, it was neld ti^at an objection to the auffi- 
Cienoy of a complaint in a forciblr detainer action should be 
presented in the form of a motion to quash, find that en objec- 
tion made after the trial has nctually coflinienced coates too late. 
This case also held that the description of premises in a com* 
plaint in a forcible detainer suit need not be technically cor- 
rect and that a general description is sufficient if from the 
OOBplaint the property c«n be located. The objection to the 
■ufficiency of the complaint coses too late. 

It la shown ^y the abstract of record that en me- 
tion of eomplAinnnt a change of venue was granted in the causa 
froa Honorable Joseph S, lABuy, one of the Judges of the M\mi* 
cipal court. The order granting the change did not specify 
what judge the case was to be assigned to. The record shows, 
however, that the cause was tried before Honorable John a, 
Swanson, Judge of the Municipal court, before a jury which re- 
turned 8 verdict finding defendant guilty of unlawfully with- 
holding possession of the premises. Here also the objection 
comes too late, uo far as the record discloses, the defendant 
went tc trial before Judge jwanson without objection; and even 
if it can be said that the order granting the change of venue 
was defective, the defendant has by its conduct waived any right 
to any advantage that oiight otherwise have accrued to him from 
the error. 

It is insisted for the defendant that the plaintiff 
was not entitled to possession of the premiees because it is 
Shown that he had leased the. to one E, K. Cole, There is no 
merit in this contention for the reason that the lease to cole 
had been canceled on the morning of the day that the present 
suit was brought. The lease was canceled not latf?r tiian nine 
o* clock on the morning of Kovamber 3rd and the present suit wm« 
begun about three o'clock of the same day. 

Some objection is made to the rulings of the court 
on the adisission of certain evidence. No such error was comr^ittad 
in this particular as would warrant a reversal of the judgpient. 

The judgment of the municipal court is affiruied. 

Holdom, 1, J., and 'AcSurely, J., concur. 

222 - 25994 

WILLIAM G. MUSoOJif, doing business 

not in c G rpo rat ©d , 




MRS. AiiNA STRAUSS, (Iping \)U 
as yRj!;D 3TRAlfS3 DYS %CI«tS 

) AipEAi. imois llUiaCIPAL 




^19I.A. 645 


Plaintiff brouRht euit against defendant tc re- 
cover fcr sn alleged breach of p contract entered into between 
the parties. The contract ccnsiatu of a written prcpceition 
made by plaintiff to inatall a Ko, k-36 kunson carbon cansuaier 
on a boiler loca^ea in prei-iiot** owned and operated by defendant. 
The prcpouai was accepted by aefenuant en Auguao X6, 191b. The 
contract did not contain aii exprests wurrauty that the article 
sold to def endant ^would perforai any iipecial services or tiiat it 
as reasonauly well adapted to cause a laore eccnoruical and effi- 
cient operation of the boiler, A provision i.j as follows; 

"All previous coRBounicaticns between the purchaser 

and the cc/opany, :/, G. i.'un8on, or their representatives, either 
verbal or written, relative tc the subject matter of this upeci- 
fi cation, and .7hicn do not fona a part tnsrecf, are hcsreby 
abrogated, and this proposal and specification \7hen duly exe- 
cuted constitutes the agrecxasnt between the parties hereto, 
and no modifioationa of the agreement shall be binding upon 
the parties hereto or either of th«a, unless euch B)odlficationt 
shall be in writing and signed by the purchaser and the vunson 
Carbon Consumer Co., !lot Inc., v/, G, kunson, proprietor," 

It is ins s ted on behalf of the plaintiff that th« 

contract ia in writing; that it is unambiguous and that the full 

agreement entered into by the parties must be found within its 

four comers; that tne contract ia for the purchase of an article 

under its patented or trade naaie and lihat unaer the uniform sales 

Act no implied warranty can be written intc it. The plaintiff 

st^d .A.i eis 

fiiGGOS - 

leBtilied on direct esasuainsticn that the device in question was 
P&tented; ti;at it was ilelivered tc dcsfendant in oomplianoe with 
tne teruiB oi the contract ana tJmt she had refused to pay there- 

ilia court o-wtr objection admitted evidence which 
tended to anew that the device delivered to defendant did not 
perform aervicea of any value to her, and that in its operation 
certain damage waa done tc the boiler. 

The evidence introduced for defendant also tends 
to prove that aht knew little or nothing about the operation of 
the boiler and that she had no knowledge whatsoever of the 
character of the device in question except asj she wae informed 
by plaintiff; that he had on several occaaions during a period of 
about a iucnth solicited her tc purcliase the cevice and tlriat the 
contract in question was the result of his pronases and agreement! 
to fettRCh a device tc thp Iciler tliat wculd cause i^. to give more 
efficient and eccncmical service, on cross examinetion the plain- 
tiff deniRd that he had msde any repreaentaticne concerninK the 

deYice;^thfa he did xiot tell defendant vhat the device wee fori 

that a Mr, Baua had informed defendant thereof and that he» plain- 
tiff, merely called upon her to "see the size to be used on the 
plant and to draw up » contract," 

The evidence, if admissible at all, is amply sufficient 
to warrant the conclusion of the trial Judge thnt the device in 
question was unfitted to perforcj the service for defendant irtxich 
the plaintiff represented at could and would perform, as testified 
to by defendant, and we are inclined to hold v/ith the trial ccurt 
that the preponderance of the evidence was decidedly in hex favor. 
A paragraph of the Uniform Sales Act provides as follows: 


*In caae cf a contract to sell, ox* a atile of tiie 
syjecified artiole under its patent or trade name, there ia 
no implied warranty as tio its fitness for any particular 

The article in question does not seeni to have been 
sold under the name under which it was patented. The patent des- 
cril»es the device as a new and uaeVul improvement in •♦amoke-Flue 
Bainpers for Feeding Air to Cosbustion-ChaEabers," 

lijxcept the contract in question no evidence was in- 
troduced showing tliat the device had a trade or patent name. The 
evidence tends lo ahow that defenuant aid not intend tc purchase 
any particular device by its pateiited or trade nowe; that her pur- 
pose was to provide for an econoinical operation of the boiler; that 
to effect this puz'pose she applied tc the plaintiff and that she 
acted upon laia advice and suggestions. 

X^ior tc the passatsc cf this law qucted above oral 
eriience was adaiisslble in an action on a written contract for the 
purpose of showing the relationship of the parties to ssach other 
at the tlEe a contract is entered int-:» so that the court fiiight be 
placea in a pcelticn to construe the contract in the light of that 
relationship, our attenticn hfts not been directed to any authority 
whicl' ohfngea the Inw in this particular, 

Ir the of Tiew Idee. Arc Lifiht Co . v. Rennecker Co ^ 
195 111. App, 290, it is said that vhen a manufacturer sells good* 
for f specific use there is an in^plied warranty on his part that 
they are reasonably fit for such purpose. The eviaencc tenas to 
■how th».t, Strauss desired, on the application and insistanct 
of plaintiff, to purcliawe the device in question trnd her wishes 
in this respect seeu; to have been caused by the specific proinises 
of plaintiff, Bhe, cf course, knew tl^at the contract provided for 
the of a device the operation of which would, she believed. 

be prcfltaWe tn her; but ahe states shew knew nothing atcut the 
princljlP's on which it wpsn to he rperated. In other word©, we 
think the evidence discloses that 9he relied in the making of 
the contract upon the expert cpinion and adyioe of the plain- 
tiff snd that she rnposed confidence in his prcmiees. 

It iB our opinion that aaide from the question of 
an express oral warranty the plaintiff was bound by an implied 
warranty that the prticle delivered to plaintiff was reasonably 
well fitted and adapted for the purjoae for which it vrais intended 
to be used. 

la the case of Craip v. pel 1 et . 209 111, App. 568, 

the court said: 

•The implied vrarrarty Is pn obligr^ticn iaiposed by 
law, ♦•♦^*«-» Thr general rule, hCTrover, is well establibhed 
by autlorities that nmri^rntieB rray be iiri],litd when the con- 
tract is in rritirg as u'cl"? bs when it is oral," 

As Bteted, prior tc the L^niform Gsles Act of 1915 
( Call aphan»B 1916 nt. Gupp , 1021 (4) et seq.) whore the purchaser 
of a specified appnancc fiiO not rely en the judgmeiit or skill 
of thf> seller, but rrr.e as familier with the appliance as the 
seller, there was no implied warranty by the jseller that the 
appliance ^ae rcasonsibly fit for the purpose for which it ^as 
bought. IJMchs & Lar^; C c . v, yittredge &. ^ Q »* *'*2 111, 8£. 

Section 12 of Chapter 121 -A I'urd's Rev. otat , of 

Illinois 1917, provides thst - 

"Any affirm© ti on of fact or any yTC-.^^ise by the 
seller relating to the goods is an express warranty if the 

natural tendency of such aff iritiation or promise is to induce 
the buyer to purchase the goods, nnd if the buyer purchases 
the goods relying tnerecn,***** 

Defendant's evidence tends to prove that the defend- 
ant was indiiced to purchase the device by representations xaads 
by plaintiff, and under 3ec . 12 of chap. 121 -A Kurd's Rev. Stat, 
of Illinois, 1917, above quoted, he became bound by his state- 



flients. ?heae ropresentations or. Uir- part of plaintiff, vmex- 
preased p£« they ware in the \irittt;n contract, vrere i.rcparly 
siaowri by oral testiacny. The casea of Kersler; v, '-yest Coast 
Roofing Co., 2C4 111. App, 477, and ChlcRgc -UreLouee y>nc 3II0 
Fixture CO . v. i.iEhXand pinning Ifill !*nd Lu^iber Co., 206 111, 
App. 458, do not aid the coTitenticn cf plaintiff. 

It is cleaental that the consideration for an ex- 
press written prcrtiee aay hf? inquired int"> by parcle. The de- 
fendant insists that the ccneiderat icn for her proraiae to pay 
for the devlca iii question was the express oral premise and 
agreement of the plaintiff to irstell s device which ^;»ould 
perfcraa certain specified services fcr the defendant. 

Iio reverBible error ttps consmitted hy the tri**! 
ccurt in giyrixn^, refusing tc give, cr ir thr mcdif icaticr of 
certain prcpositicnn of law, ncr in its rulings en the ad- 
nisaicn of evidence, 

The Judonent cf the trial ccurt win therefore be 


HoldOB, r. J., find '.-cSurely, J., concur. 


24S - 2601 

next frit^nu, \ 

\ / ; ta^^Kkh rilOIi CIRCUIT COUKT 


I / ) oy COOK comrrv. 


I'liifr is an rip?r:al frcm a judfcmect ol the cirouit 
court c-i Ccolc County eKteret? in thai couit in fa^cr ct j-iain* 
tlif foi- the teuiiJ of ^7,S0C,rC', 

April 2, 1917, liiQ ?.'tali*tilf , a boy niwe j'oarfi of 
af;e, tfhilG i.a the «k«t of croaa^ng jTortb Qlark street in an e&stez^ 
ly directicn at or near the Intersect ion uf his-^u^/i^y ';.-itli 
HOBlyn pl&oe, saa atruc^; ay *n ';>b>tc;aoDiie trucjc oev^ng in a 
northerly direotioa on Jgorta Cl«rl£ 8ir«€t. is<"crth <jXurk street 
is a nortii a&u south atx'eet sad Rcsiyc pluoe extends -j&ai. and 
vest. Tiifc evicience mircUuced tor th«» plaintafl '-ckos tc 8i;0w tiiat 
as he tttcia.ptec» to crcaa lovth Clerk street- i !■©* itu weax 9ia4<«allc 
te the acuth walk ci^ ueelyw p3.?;oe i»e a-w th« i»utemobtle truck run- 
ning north ',ni iTerth c'larlc iJtrfjet ?thra it wa» -• o.iaUmce cf ;-:.i.6ut 
listj fatrt :-j-,iutii of htci; *.h9^-. thfl ri^.intiff attfwipte<-i to cro»» oiie 
atr'^oh m fi^c-nli of ths ni^rr^acbinic truck; ttis.t *ii«n h« raacaad the 
car triiolvs v=il.1 Jlom en TTorth niw"V atreet he lcok«d toward tha 
south and .wj-r t.hg truck ribsut 35 or 40 feet e.way; that he con- 
tinued .b.i*i rv.jur»o Rcrosg t.u« ?trf*«t e.n:; vas atniO- by the truck 
asij. th<?Teby yeceivwd injurieai. 

?hij (rriaenoQ iM<.ro4uced alju tends to snow that tae 
plaint i.ri: !»tt.«ifflpt.*»d to crosH Kortii Cl-'^r,'; street at a }?«^oa uaually 
Ui«d uy padeatriana lar -hat purjio;>«i and th.xt the acci ient ooourrad 

tiTOdS - 5^i 

in a thiokly populated neighborhood. 

Xt Is Insiated that the evidenoe introduocd on 
the trial does not disclose that the defendant was guilty of 
9ctlonabXe negligence and thPt the plaintiff was guilty of neg- 
ligprce .7hich crntribut^d to cause rue accident. There is juuch 
force in thft argument laade on beJrialf of the defendant that if 
the plaintiff had acted with due caution he would net have at- 
tenapted to cross the street in front of the approaching truck 
when, ns plaintiff testified, he saw it when it was not more 
thsn 55 or 4C feet frcirj him» Two witnessps, Horn and fcCauley, 
eaployea of p telephone company, were fitting in a repair wagon 
on the east aid<3 cf Clark a tree t aome distance stuth of the 
place vyherc the noci.rnt occurred. One of tiiPse witnesses said 
he saw the boy rurirdng across tiorth Glar.Tc street at a point south 
of Hoslyn place and that he ran into the aide of the truck. Mc* 
Cauley also testified that he saw the plaintiff running in a north- 
easterly directiqjo just bcfcre the accident. 

on the whole evidence we are inclined to the view 
tht».t the question of defendant's n-^gligenoe, as alar that of 
the plaintiff, was a question of fact which was .-rop'rrly left to 
the determination of the Jury. When fue consideration is giren 
to tJtie c>iarncter of the neighborhood 'vh re ths accident happened* 
the age of plaintiff, and other c i re xjun stances attendinsj the acci- 
dent, it cannot be said as a matter of law t^iat the driver in 
charge of the truck was without negligence, or that the plaintiff 
by nis conduct vvss guilty of neglig«ioe which contributed to cause 
the accident. There dees not appear to have been any obstacle in 
the street which seriously obstructed either the view of plaintiff 

or the driver of tiie truck. The truck witn its load weighed about 

six tons, and it was being operated in a ti.iokly settled neighbor- 
hood. The jury had sufficient evidence before it to v?arrant a 

finding that the drirer, had he exoroiaedthe o«re which was desnanded 
of hljTi in view cf the aharacter of the neighborhood where the ac- 
cident occurred, coul^ have Been the plaintiff in time to prerent 
the fccoident. The evi ence tends to show Ui&t the boy waa struck 
by the west 8id« cf the truck. The driver tostified that at the 
time- of t>ie accident the truck naa moving at about eight aiiles 
an hour; oth(>r ^iritneseea stated that the speed oi the truo. .iab 
about twelve lEllea an iiour. 

It is not enou«^i, under the ciroum&tancea attending 
the acciaent, tc £i:io.7 th&^: thr truck «aa beirig opfrrated in compli- 
ance with pat):ia Xawo regulating the ajiefid of such vehiclea. ^ere 
heavily loaded truck! ar^ b^ing operated in thickly settled dis- 
tricttj, fii re ohilrtren nnd ndulta are continuoutily orosaing 
sti'eete, it in required of the cirxvers of such vehicles to exercise 
a de£,ree of care coizuuensurate i«ith the danger attending the run- 
ning of such vehicles at points ^h.jre persons crosaing th? 
stref-t3 &T<. m d&ajt'er of t.:ing run down, and, under suca cirouiu- 
stances, the operaticrj of a truclc even at the rate of ten or 
twelve allies an hcur, may aiiiiount tc negligence. 

In the case of K e sale r v. Af^shburrt , 157 III, App. 

532, the court said: 

**App!^ll ee'a conduct ia to be ,judg-'~d vitn reference 
to th • stress of appearances at the time, and noc by the cool 
estijaatft oi the actual danger formed by outsiaera after the 
event, if appellee had notice of the apprcac;. of the automo- 
bile 125 feet away, as appellant olaims, this dia not neces- 
sarily mnk^; hisa guilty of contributory negligence ^n not 
avoiding a collision with it, as he hnd a right to assume 
that it would approach at a lawful rate of speed and to 
calculate upon pasainK in front of it on that a»3u»ption. 
If he jiade an error of Judfa:ra<?nt , this would not conclude 
him on the QUisstion of reasonable care, if the autcpaotile 
was approaching him at an unlawful rate of speed," 

As stated in the }' easier case, it was required of 

the driver of the truck in question tc use all the care and 

caution whic:^ an ordinarily prudent driver wculd luave exercised 

bxr»« iik'o 

and'^r tsic sirtftiiaatairiOijs ':mia:-i o^fiatc-il ati »i»ul just liofore tho ao- 
cideut htipiJ^ined. And nijatiier no iJLil cjc« auc.i prudejioo "■jsaa, 
we tiiink, a «5.^<?8tiiui !>f fit!!; f,)r fch» Jui'v, The >laj.nt,lff raa 
CBll(5<i upon tc ascercise oo^^il"/ guoii cnre far iiia d&fehy -aa \wou:.<S 
be Xv>quixe<i kiT p. boy yf ;iis bge and intelligevict;, An«J e^eu If 
it c«n "bsj sRid tiwic he e/rcneously beliaved tnat ii e Viad »'u"ri- 
cifcul tiiue tu OTuss tilt- alir^dt In front ol the apj-roi»C;Jlii^ 
truck <9ltuoat bfiln^ attraotv, «.hi« XhoI, do&6 uol oL.ar4.e hLi^ ca Si 
fliStter of I'iVi wifeti ncricvibutcry negiifettiifc*. Uuder UiC- oiroum- 
atar;c«jd wiii'jh uci feted ut whe cjjufc ol" ine acci.lout Lji,i l;i.'.« iinT-cned 
the- :;iiy apoii tho drivei oT '.4i« li-iiCA tu "i>e laiwlTul of L-m .fact 
thci eiiilaren, more ex itsa iifeedlcfti? cT aUuVin^ w'sri^iclou, .varo 
likely to orcBSi tbc yubiie atrewt, s-na it v»4*i inouftitisnt a|*'^n hlni 
to exercise r«R«nnaiie care to iiave iiia vei/iclfe ^-iijaier &jch oeii- 
tr-cl fte woulu ceni to prujvfcnt aucit an jvvici darJ, aa cccurred iu 
tne rreacnt ows-'e. 

rh« J|ud«iaei:it of th« Cii"£:ai". goui t wi* J b« affix'tued. 

Holdcio, i , .7,, «nd Vcfiurely, J., c<»o«ur. 

276 - 26C48 

Appellant , 


AmxUR ft COUr'AI^Y, a corjporntion, 
corporation, and JOHN ?. LAIXA . 
CO&'ArsY, a corporation, \, / ) 

Appellees, tv y* ) 



219I.A. 645 


The plaintiff filed iiia declaration, consisting of 
four counts, in which he charged that the defendants had com- 
ffl^tted an unlawful assault upon hixa and that they liad also been 
guilty of other trespaasea against plaintiff's property and 

l^emurrers, general and special, were filed by the 
defendants to the declaration, on argument these denmrrera were 
sustained and leave »as given the plaintiff to file an amended 
declaration within ten days. On failure to file an amended dec- 
laration within the time specified suit was disBissed for want 
of compliance with the rule, and plaintiff seeks to reverse this 
order by appeal to this court. 

The order sustaining the demurrer and giving leave 
to aaend is as follows; 

*It is ordered that said demurrer be and the same 
is hereby sustained and leave be and the same is hereby given 
plaintiff to file an ojraended declaration herein within 10 
days from this date." 

NO exceptions were taken to the order sustaining th« 

demurrers, nor does the record show that the plaintiff elected 
to stand by his declaration. On the record before us it aiuet be 

held that the order sustaining the deiiurrer and giving leave to 

amend was not an appealable order, and we are not, therefore, 

permitted to determine the question of the sufficiency of the 

8*0ftS - df 

■^rf^t'^tf ei 

declaration filed "by the plaintiff, Ke bill of exceptions appe«r« 
in the record and advantage can be taken of only such errors as ap- 
pear on the face of the record. 

The only point made Toy the plaintiff is that the 
court erred in sustaining the decjurrers to the declaration. 

In the case of C hicag o jrortrait Co, v. Chicago 

crayon Co . . 217 III, 200, the Supreme court said: 

"The circuit court merely sustained a dcr».urrer 
to the declaration, and neither adjudged that the plF.intiff 
take nothing hy the writ cr that the defendant go hence 
without day, and the judfpnent contained no words of equiva- 
lent meaning. There was no trial of any issue resulting in 
a finding for the defendant, as there was no issue to be 
tried and there %»s nothing in the nature of a determina- 
tion of the rights of the parties,* 

The record before us shows that the order sustaining 
the ieraurrers to the decl?*ration was not a final judgment from 
which an appeal would lie to thia court. On its face it did not 
determine the rights of the parties. The order expressly gave 
the plaintiff the rigtxt to airend his declaration v?ithin ten days. 
He failed to dc ao within that time and no error was committed 
by the trial court in its order dismissing the suit. 

The judgment of the Circuit court wxll be af- 


Hcldoffi, V, J,, and l.'cSurely, J., concur. 




296 - 26069 


▼ ». 


AUFj^L mm MimicrtKL court 


219I.A. 645 


This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment 
entered against it in the iconic ipal court of Chicago for tlia 
sum of $2912.50. 

A promissory note, which is the basis of this suit, 
was executed April 12, 1917, by Vernon C. Leftwich, payable to 
the order of himself and by him endorsed, for the sum of 
$2,500 vith interest. At the time of the transactions which 
gave rise to the litigation «. U, OrissMi was cashier for th« 
defendant bank, and under its by-laws he had authority "to sign 
drafts, checks, certificates of deposit and receipts for money 
delivered, to indorse not^^s, bill, checks, drafts and acceptances, 
and to perfozm all the ordinary business transactions of the banh." 
At the time the note in question was introduced en the trial it 
bore in addition to the endorsement of William G. Shedd, jr., 
that of the defendant bank by arisaom, its citshier. 

The eYidenoe tends to show ti:iat j. d, Carlton, cashier 
of the plaintiff bank, and Grissom had been brougixt up in the same 
••ighborhood in Johnson County, Illinois, Grissom was a stockaolder 
and director of the plaintiff bank between the dates December 1, 1916, 
and June 21, 1917, en which latter date the defendant bank became 

In January, 1917, Grissom in a conversation with jsr. 
Armstrong, president, and l^r. Carlton, cashier of the plaintiff bank, 

O r Q 

t:v'Gc*-:^ - »-i 

• .^SAtt STATB Tv. 

.^a;::r 'tu 

^ ZiS'Ji 


;80 ,at3iJXf5 ,.>ii*ii*iV« .•Jt'u, 


tttm. «. 

>> i&ju 



ISO ^ac 

informed tiiem that tixe defendant bank was overloaned ^^nd he asked 
them if the plaintiff could take $25,000 of defendant's paper. 
Grissom was informed that plaintiff would taka $5,000 of this 
paper if it bore the endoraanent of the defendant bajik, A few 
days following tiila conTersatlon arissoia sent to plaintiff by 
mail three notes, one of which was executed by Vernon c, Left- 
wich, the other two being by IBn, G. Shedd, jr., and John W, 
Shedd, respectively, each note being for the sum of ^2,500, 
These notes did not bear defendant's endorsement and they were 
returned accompanied by a letter from Mr. Armstrong, plaintiff's 
president, in which he refused to accept the notes unless they 
bore defendant's endorsement. January 27th the notes were re- 
turned duly endorsed by defendant, by Grissom, its cashier. The 
evidence shows that both credit and charge items were made on ac- 
count of the transfer of the notes. At the time they were received 
by plaintiff it had a deposit account with defendant and it 
thereupon credited defendant's account witn the face value of 
the notes. The defendant bank charged plaintiff with the amount 
Of the notes as of January 18, 1917, tiie day on wiiich the notes 
were first sent to plaintiff. The m. G. Shedd and Vernon C, 

Leftwich notes became due in April, 1917, and were sent to de- 
fendant for collection; it returned to plaintiff two new notes, 
one of them, executed by Leftwich, being the note sued on. 
These latter two notes did not bear defendant's endorsement 
when delivered to plaintiff; they were returned to defendant, 
were duly endorsed by it by Grissom, cashier, and re-delivered to 

It is insisted for the defendant that it is not 
liable on the Leftwich note. The evidence shows that neither 
the note in question nor the other notes involved m the transac- 
tions with the plaintiff bank bore certain register numbers and 

-o* no 9ii«si 9'xiov zsm^k 9s"t«sjbd anc r ^vi 

i;:^v2';j fiffew x*<i^ »jBi.f iEKaTJ »iiJ to i'n 

^Sfit&ix »ii^ £U&JUiw £io Ya£> Bdi ,*CXQX , 

.0 £raril»V Sfl« iii)^ . . . jSi 

&a oiftir ban ,VXei . vi'isj 

^urt nX iX 9adi itMba»li^ j«;)»X«r 

Uiti efiodiiu^ii "Xft^. -:»cj ft'iod a[«ncf "ilXv tiw eaold 

had. not been entered on a discount register kept "by defendant in 
aecordanoe with the regular course of business adopted by it. 

The defendant relies in the main upon its assertion 
that its cashier was personally interested in the transaction by 
which plaintiff got possession of the note sued on; that he, not 
defendant, was the owner of the note; that he had no authority 
or right to endorse the note as defendant's agent, and that 
plaintiff had, or, under the ci re lim stances, should have had 
knowledge of the fraud imposed upon defendant, plaintiff received 
the notes in the usual course of business from defendant's cashier, 
who was authorized both by the well known usage and custom of 
banks and by the express provision of defendant's by-laws to en- 
dorse notes and to perform all the ordinary business transactions 
of the bank. 

The case of Merchants ' Haticnal Bank v, Nicholos & 
Co., 223 111. 41, cited by defendant, does not sustain its posi- 
tion. In that case it was held that a principal may be bound 
to the extent of the apparent authority he has conferred upon 
his agent, and it was held that a party dealing with the agent 
must stand ready to prove the agent's authority; that it was the 
right and duty of a person dealing with an agent to ascertain the 
extent of his power and to determine whether his acts were such 
as to bind his principal, in the present case the authority of 
the cashier to endorse the notes discounted with the plaintiff was 
indicated by his office, but aside from that the evidence shows 
that he was expressly authorized by his principal to transact the 
business with plaintiff which resulted in the endorsement and 
transfer of the notes to it. The evidence does disclose, we 
think, without much question that by manipulation of the notes and 
records of defendant, Grissom was enabled to overdraw his account 

■ (^ •- r» »». - 




?7ef-. n* 

:fC Tifx 

with defendant to the extent of about |7,500. The evidence does 
not disclose any facts, however, whiola would charge the plaintiff 
with knowledge of the fraudulent character of Grissoi&'s conduct. 
The notes in question did not iihen transferred bear what j, D, 
Carlton called a discoturat number when they were received by him, 
A witness acquainted with banking customs in answer to a hypotheti- 
cal question, stated that the circi-mstanoes under which plaintiff 
received the notes were a little unusual and that he would not 
accept a loan under such circumstances. These circumstances 
might liave caused some suspicion that the conduct of Grissom was 
irregular or negligent, but they were not at all sufficient to 
create a belief in the mind of Carlton or other officers of 
plaintiff's bank that he was acting fraudulently and that he and 
not his rincipal was the person actually interested* Only bad 
faith will defeat the title of the endorsee of commercial paper 
taken before maturity for value and without knowledge of any de- 
fense thereto. Mere suspicion, the knowledge of circumstances 
calculated to excite suspicion, or even gross negligence of the 
endorsee in acquiring the paper will not defeat his title. 
( Bradwell v. Iryor , 221 111. App, 602); Kavanagh v. Bank of 
Americe . 259 111. 408. 

In the case of ?aiolt v. Canright , 202 III. App. 502, 
506, it is said that - 

■The curiosity of an inquisitive person might have 
been aroused by these letters, but it is certain that neither 
actual knowledge of the defeat, nor knowledge of auch facts 
as to make the discounting of a note bad faith are shown. 
Neither the knowledge of suspicious circuci stances or even 
gross neglifience will affect the title of an assignee in 
the absence of bad faith," 

fage v. Hallam, 212 III. App. 462 - 468. 

That the plaintiff or its officers had no actual 
knowledge of Grissom 's conduct is alniost certain, one of plain- 
tiff's officers had been acquainted with Grissom since their 

i^-K'': '-.'■^.'i^b 


.;j.V -1 **♦» i.iJ i.1 

-. ,^ »<k » »■ .^_ -r. 

ti»i>«l[J.ti iUvi 

childhood. GriaBom and Ms principal had frequently transacted 
business with plaintiff and there was nothing shown by the evi- 
dence that would cause plaintiff or its officers to auspect that 
Grissoa was not acting in perfect good faith. Plaintiff in no way 
profited by Grissom's fraudulent conduct and it is perfectly 
clear that ita officers would not consciously have become parties 
to his fraudulent acts when by so doing, without prospective 
profit, they would have risked $7,5oO of plaint iff As money. We 
cannot discover from the evidence before us facts sufficiently 
strong to charge plaintiff *s officers with notice of Grissom's 
conduct. The fact that the notes did not bear a register number 
and that in the first instance they Iriad been delivered to plain- 
tiff without defendant's endorsement, were not, in our cpinion, 
sufficient to give notice that Grissom was dealing for himself and 
not for his principal; nor did the fact that he was a stockholder 
and director of plaintiff's bank serve to give th^a any warning 
that he might violate his trust toward defendant. 

In the transactions in question Griasoffl was roting 
within the scope of his authority as cashier of the defendant 
bank, and in the absence of notice, actuPl or constructive, to 
the plaintiff or its authorized agents of his lack of authority 
to endorse the note, the defendant bank became bound by his act. 

The Judgment of the l^unicipal court is affirmed. 


Holdom, 1, J., and iosurely, J,, concur. 

'•3iJ USS..' ^JK_L •i-l'.S:^ .,.'i,.;S. 

'iul i^i^M^ ^..u^ii L' 

.;.4 Ic ... 

32c; - 26100 \ 

JOKN- 0. coor. 





219I.A. 646 


This is an appeal by Theodore H. Sohintz, defendant, 
from a Judgment of the Municipal court of Chicago in a toroibl« 
detainer action brought against him by the plaintiff, John G. 

The owner of the preosilses the right to possession of 
which ia in dispute between the parties, is Daniel K. Rothschild, 
who executed a lease therefor to the plaintiff fcr the term from 
October 1, 1919, to September 3o, 1920. At the close of all the 
evidence the court ^ upon motion of the plaintiff, directed a ver- 
dict in his favor. The verdict was entered as Jirected, Judgment 
was entered thereon and the defendant seeks by this appeal to re- 
verse the Judgment. 

Defendant was in possession of the prnalses under a 
written lease which expired iieptember 30, 1919, and he insists that 
he entered into sun cral agreement with (/hiteside &. Wentworth, the 
owner's agents, for an extension of his right to the possession of 
the premises tintil liay 1, 1920, at an increased monthly rental. 
Kr. Rothschild, the owner of the premises, testified that Whiteside 
& Wentworth acted as his agents in the handling of the building and 
that a fcr. Danz of that firm was his duly authorised agent, Mr. 
Rothschild, however, testified that his agents had authority to 
■*ke only written leases for the premises in question, and his 






testixaony in tJaia particular is not directly denied by any eyidenct 
offered or received on beiie.lf of the defendant. 

Tixe defendant testified that in the course of a con- 
versation with i:r. Rothschild in which defendant said that the 
agents had agreed to an extension of .is, defendant's, lease until 
tjay li, 1920« Ur , Hothschild said he did not see any reason why an 
old tenant should be dispossessed for a new tmant. This statement, 
if true, does not amount to a ratification of the unautiiorized 
act of the agents. 

It may be concedel that the question of whether the 
agents had entered into an oral agreement with defendant was a 
question of fact for the determination of the jury, but as to the 
matter of the authorixation of the agents to make auch oral agree- 
ment, we think the evidence is undisputed that they had no such 
authority and that the owner had not either expressly or impliedly 
ratified the alleged oral agreement. 

The judgment of the Municipal court will be af- 


Holdom, P. J,, and KcSurely, j,, concur. 

;5«»&iT« xnsH y^<i fc«in«i- 




;'«%d .£t3iia «::£i^»!n oi »ias-^& ®A^ 


245 • zm^. 



m oerpor«tiOB« \ 

App vli Ant . 


219I.A. 646 

i^R, jxiatici uomntiy dsxivsrkd thr orision of rm- ccuvt. 

B«f«n;l»nt by t.^j^la appeal a«ka for th« rtYeraal of « 
Judgaent airainat it of $12,5C0 is an aotlon to reecvtr e»aip«na*tlon 
for peraonal injurioa* triad by a jury and Uie oourt, Tha aaaa 
haa baae twica triad; tbe firat tiaia Uiora «aa a verdiot cf not 
guilty. «• ragrat that the praaant judfisent Atust bs ravaraad and 
the eausa rcuMindad fcr a third trial. 

>14intiff waa foraojan for the i^ykaa ata«>l HoofiBg 
Company which bad » contract vritn the fir&% of Hitter & iott to 
cover the roof and aiding of the ahop of defendant vyith glaaa arjd 
corrugated iron,* Kbile working on th^ aiding on the inside of 
the ahop plaintiff plaeod hia hand on fc*ie trao> cf a orana operated 
by defendarit nnd a or«n« ran over it inflicting the injuriea in 

two oranea uaed thla traek, which waa nlonKoide of and 
near the pl^eo vh«iTa j^luintiff and hia men ware worlring, llalntiff 
praaented eiridenee tending to ahow there waa an a^ree^ent between 
the concern doing thi» work and tne rajfreaeritatiYea of Cefendant 
that whenever a crane waa about tc paaa the plaee ^exe the nan 
were working it would atop and net proceed until it had warned 
thaae workfuen s;; tixat tiiey might retuova froa danger. 

After a new trial had been gnuated in the firat 
trial the aaee waa (JiaBiissed for want of proaecution but rein- 
atated by atipulation. upon avction of ilaintiff a char«ge of venue 


wtk» tmk«n frost the trial Judge to «ho& the oase then was asaigned. 
In the fall of 1918 plaintiff &\0Ted to adTance the oaae on the 
calendar and eet It down for a new trxal and at Uic ease tine de- 
fendant made a aotlon for a continuance on the ground of the ab- 
sence from the state of three witneeeee lor Ua^ defense. Theae 
were Edward Kyeraon, Charles Vallicre and liarry kin tier. These 
jjen were all at tliat time in the service of the United states 
gOTerrt»ent and it was iispossihle to have them present in person. 
They were expected to giv« testuaony tending to negative the 
agreement above referred to with reference to stopping the cranes 
before passing the place wh«^e the men were working inside the 
building. The motion to continue was not passed upon until the 
case was reached December 9, 1916« v^en the motion was renewed. 
This was resisted upon the ground that tha deposition of ur, 
Valliere was taken, that Kyerson had testified on the former trial 
and plaintiff had an unsigned statement frca t^'lntier. It is 
argued witii force that as tula alleged agreeaent «ms verbal, de- 
fendant could not anticipate Just exactly the funs In which plain- 
tiff would present auoh conversation and txieref re could not ade- 
quately anticipate w^iat would be sworn to in tula respect en behalf 
of plaintiff; and, furthennore, because of the peculiar character 
of this teatlfflony It was almost a necessity to make a proper de- 
fense that these witnesses should be present on the stand to be 
seen and heard by the Jury. 

At the tiaie the motion was first made for a continuance, 
that is in October, lOlB, we wf^re still In the midst of the great 
war, but when It was ranewed at the time the ease was called for 
trl»l in December, 19ie, the armistice had been sigried and thera 
was a reasonable prospect that the personal attendance of thesa 
witnesses could be had within a oiiert time. The trial court, 
however, denied the ototios for continuance and proceeded with tha 



trial, fe ar« of th« opinion sueh. denial was erroneous. In 

Kilea V. Banforth . 32 111. 59, it was hold that it is ground for 

continuance that a aiCteriaX absent witness is a soldier on aetivo 

oanipaign. Among ether cases holding that a aisilar motion for 

ocntinuance should have been allovod are: Adams v. Col ton , 2 

ScamiBon 71; Corbin ▼, The leople , 131 ill. 616; Kellyville Coal 

Co . ▼. Hill , 95 111. App, 660. Adffii^sion that the absent witness 

would testify as stated xn the affidavit is not always ths equira- 

lent in prcbative foroe to his testimony given on the stand. The 

appearance of a witnesa and his i&anner of testifying usually 

supply Just the element of personality whicu enables a Jury 

prcperly to weigh contradictory stat^nents, ws approve of what 

was said in Hopkingcn v. Jones , 28 111. App. 409: 

*It soastlmes occurs that the relations if th« 
absent witness to the party desirinf: his evlcenoe and attend* 
anee is such that his personal presence la as isnportant to 
aid in the conduct of the trial as nis svldence upon ths is- 
sue involYsd. And ndien euoh personal presence of the witness 
is fairly shown tc the court by proper affidavit tc be reason- 
ably and rroba^ly neosssary tc a fair trial and to prevent 
surprises, then, »nd In suon oases the motion ought not to be 
overruled because ths party may adnsit the affidavit.** 

we hold that the motion to continue was presented in 
apt tisis; that the supporting affidavit suffioiently oonplied with 
the statute and under the cirousst&noes of the case the motion for 
continuance should not have been overruled. 

Objection is oiade to ths adsuission of statements with 
reference to stopping the erans twenty feet from the workiaen and 
ringing a bell, te.intior, to whoa such statoKienta are attributed, 
was not nn agent of defendant and thereforv any agreentmnt by hiA 
would not bind the defendant. We are inclined to think they arc 
adnltiBible under the charge of general negligence and particularly 
under the cc^int of fBj.lure to give plaintiff warning. 

Valid criticism is raada of the first instruction given 

at plaintiff's requtst. it was entirely too lon« and we do not 
••• faow it oould hare been of any asai stance to the Jury, 

Other points are made wtiioJa should not receive com* 
ment from us at this timf- as the case must be r«sianded for a new 
trial, ?or the error in refusing defendant «b motion for continuance 
the Judt^jsent is reversed and the cause is remanded. 


Boldoni, 1. J,, and 15ever, J,, concur. 


123 - 25694 

a corporation* \ 

plaintiff in irror, 


« corporation. 

Defendant in'ijlrror. 


mmon to supthtor court 


219 I.A. 646 


Kaintiff brought an action in d«bt on an mployee't 
Fidelity Bond issued by defendant, seeking to reeoTer $2641 .43, 
but the trial court directed a verdict for $361.76 and Jud^i^aent 
was entered for this amcunt. Plaintiff appeals, claiming it 
was entitled tc the larger amount. 

The bond in question was dated Becember 30, 1913, 
and by its terms defendant agreed to pay any pecimiary loss, not 
exceeding |1C,00G, which the plaintiff, an employer, might sustain, 
of money or other personal property by any act of personal dis- 
honesty, theft, «nbexzleraent, etc., by Ix>ui8 F. Weiss, an employee, 
while in the en^loyer*s serTice. Under date of December 24, 1913» 

defendant sent to plaintiff a letter stating that tfeiss had applied 
to defendant company for a fidelity bond and that as the issuance 
of 8uch bond would depend upon information furnished by plaintiff, 
the latter was requested to answer the questions in an accciBpanying 
paper. These questions were answered, and among other items of in- 
formation plaintiff stated therein that its books, accounts, stocks 
and securities would be inspected, audited and verified with funds 
on hand or in bank, **at least once every month." 

DeceKiber K;, 1914, as the first year of the bond was 
Hearing a close, defendant issued a notice of exi'iration to plain- 
tiff, and en receipt thereof and as a consideration for the con- 
tinuance of the bond plaintiff sent defendant t^e nesassary presdtiai 





for the ensuinfi year and alsp th« following letter: 

"To CAloAgo Bonding And i^urety company^ 

THI5 IS TO CSI17I9Y* That since the issuance of the 
above bond Kr. Weiaa liae faithfully, honestly and punctually 
accounted to me for all money and prcpert.y in -is control or 
custody 89 fliy employee; has always had prcper securities and 
funds on hand to balance his accounts, and is not new in de- 
fault to me. 


B. B. orennell, 

Treas, & Gen*l Ugr, 
Dated Bee. 11, 1914, at Chicago, ill." 

Thereupon the bond was continued in force. 

The SYidenee discloses that the employee, Weiss, 
had ambeszled |361.78 in August, 1914, and the balance of his 
thefts occurred after the policy had been renewed as above stated. 
The position of the defendant was willingness to pay the anount 
takejn during the first year, but disclaiming liability for thefts 
occurring after the renewal upon the ground that the renewal was 
obtained by reason of the representation of plaintiff that -^^'eiss 
had theretofore faithfully and honestly accounted for all moneys 
in his control, etc., which representation was untrue. The trial 
court was in accord with this view and directed a verdict accord- 

The question involved has been recently before this 
court and deter-Gined, Whyland v. Chicago Bonding and Security Co., 
209 111. App. 485, and Autp Truck Steel Body Co. v. Chicago Bonding 
and Insurance Co., 25174, opinion filed April 50, 1920. The opin- 
ions and decisions in these oases ar*^ conclusive on the point be- 
fore us. They both support the position of the plaintiff here and 
the judf^ent of the trial court, fer. Justice Cfridley in the latter 
case iaas comprehensively investigated and stated the deeisions in 
point, and we refer to what is there said as well as to the opinion 
in the is(hyland case as to reasons for our conclusion. »iloe Go. 

^» Rpy<*l Indemnity Co ., 289 111, 383, Is also deolaiv«, '«b«r« th* 

court aiild of a slfflllAr point; 

"The 8tatem»»nt8 made by appellant were untru«, Ob- 
vloualy, the infornttation contained in the dtatementa was of 
vital importance in inducing appellee to exeoute the bond, 
ijome of the atatensents must have been kno^rn by appellant to 
be untrue and aa to othera, whether known by appellant to be 
untrue or not, it aaaumed knowledge of the facta and can not 
now allege want of knowledp.e. ( Hartford Life and Annuity Ina. 
Co. V. Gray , 91 III. 159.) 

llaintiff ar^ea extenaively in detail atteuspting to 
ahow that Weiaa's method of eabesaleoinrit Mia akilfully concealed. 
However, it appeara clearly that a proper fflonthXy checking up of 
the oaah would have disoloaod a loaa, and aa aaid in the vyjlc e 
case, aupra , the plaintiff "aaausied knowledge of the facta and 
cannot now allege want of knowledge," 

9e do not tiilnk the record aupporto the claim that 
defendant changed ita hold after auit waa brought a»d now defends 
on different grounds. The letter refusing payment of the entire 
amount claimed is consistent with its poaltion upon the trial, 

What w« have above stated diaposea of other points 
made in the brief, and for ths reasons above indicated the Judg- 
ment ie affiirmed. 

Holdoia, I. J,, and never, J,, concur. 

175 - 25947 



Appellfe« ) 

80L0I10V STI^IIQIAB et'al.. 



219I.A. 646 


Plaintiff, bringing auit to recover compensation 
for pereonnl injuries alleged to have been Inflicted by de- 
fendant's autoffiobile* had judro&ent for $750, frcm which de- 
fendant appeals. The declaration was originally in five counts, 
but subsequently all except the first ocunt were eliminated. 
This alleged general neglij^rent operation of the automobile and 
was sufficient to state a eause of action, ClriicRgo city Railway 
Co, V. JennintsS , 157 111, 274; Chicago City Ra 11 way Co . v. lural , 
224 111. 324. criticiam of the inartificial character of the 
declaration is net unportant, as all intendments favcr the dec- 
laration after verdict. Buck v. Citizens 0^. ^, £., <i54 111, 198; 
Humaeon v. Michigan Central H. H, Co,, -i69 111. 462. Insufficiency 
in form cf a declaration cannot be {.resented after verdict, 111 1- 
noie Steel Co. v, atonevick , 199 III. 122, 

While there is some dispute as tc the facts of the 
occurrence, the Jury properly cculd believe that on the evening 
in question, September 13, 1916, plaintiff had alighted from a 
southbound street oar running on Ashland avenue, in Chicago, in 
the west track, wiiich stopped at the north crossing at prie street, 
which runs east and west; that she passed to the rear of the oar, 
crossing the southbound track and into the space between the 
southbound track and the northbound track and then observed the 
automobile of the defendant moving in a northerly direction about 

forty feci »way. running with one whetl east of the east rail of 
the northbound track and going at the rate of twenty-fiye or 
thirty miles an hour; that she waited for it to pass whwrj, as 
it appeared to her, it suddenly swerred frcsi its straight course 
OTer to the left and in a westerly direction, striking plaintiff 
and injuring her. Under these circumstances the Jury rightly 
could conclude that the accident vms caused hy the negligent 
Operation of the automobile both frith respect to speed and its 
sudden chiinge of direction towards plaintiff, and also that at 
this tiae plaintiff «as ^ceroiaing due and proper caution for 
her safety. 

It is strenuously argued that the driTer of the 
autortubile at this tiioe was not driving it as an agent of the 
defendant but eclely upon sn errand personal to himself. The 
evidence presented on this joint was that the car was driven by 
one Trock, an ercploye cf the defendant; that he was aocustoned 
to using and driving the car. having driven it five or six times 
before this; t]riat defendant is a mesKber of the fine of steinmaa 
Brothers, e copartnership, and that upon the evening in question 
a mnnufacturer by the name of Priedxaan had been interviewing this 
concern upon some business; that when he left than 7rook under- 
took to carry Priedaan and also a Mr. Turbin, who had business 
relations witti defendant's concern, down town and then to return 
with the car to defendant, who was waiting for the automobile at 
his place of business. The accident happened on the return trip, 
We cannot say that the Jury was not justified in believing that 
this trip was not a personal one by Trook, but was iriade as the 
agent for defendant and for the purpose cf ocnveying these two 
laea vftio had business relations with the defendant's firm, 
R<pinick v, ametana, 205 III, App, 321. 

Th« OT/nersiiip of the automcbll* waa denied by apecial 
plea. There le in evidence »n adaiieeion by the defendant of owner* 
ship and alto a atat^ent as tc Troek being a good ctiaiiffeur. The 
credibility of the witneea teetifying to this ad^dasion is strongly 
attacked, but ee cannot say the Jury should not htvte bolioTed it. 

It ia said that certain letters ^Khicii adxiiitted o,wner- 
ship and control of the automobile were imprcperly admilted in evi- 
dence because their authorship was not shown. The attorney for 
plaintiff wrote to the fim to which defendant belongs, advising 
then of this accident and suggesting settleRient. This letter was 
properly stanped and sailed. In due time the attorney received 
back through the United States mail his letter* with a co^ffinunioa- 
tien referring to his letter written upon the lower part of the 
letter 8heet« This was signed by thP firm name, this was suffi- 
cien . to raise a presumption that it was written and 3«nt by de- 
fendant's firm and it was proper for the jury tc consider it. It 
was also proper to present tc the Jur:"/ the other letter wMoh pur- 
ported to have been written and signed by Steinman Bros., for it 
refers to a previous letter and to the subject matter under con- 

llaintiff received contusions on her body generally 
and suffered much pain and was prevented from attending to her work 
for seme time. We cannot say that the award of :^75() was excessive, 

This court should not overrule the verdict of the jury 
unless such verdict is manifestly against the great «»r weight of ths 
evidence. As ws cannot say this in the present case ana as no re- 
versible errors occurred upon the trial, the judr,ment is affirmed, 


Holdora, i, J,, and Dever, J,, concur. 


184 * 25956 


Apueller, J 

\ . ) / OF CtKiK COUUTY, 



219 lA. 646 


Tbis i« ftn «|>p«iftl by tho defendant froei a judr^icot 
for $2691.14 AgRinat hioi in an action of tr«iipHa» uxi the ease. 

Ilftintlff *• declaration all€>ged that on or about 
SeptcMtoar 24* 1913, she pl^oad wltii defandiant for aaf« keeping 
13200 in money upon the promlte that he vould koep thfi same 
for her until tihe requested its return; that he afterwards re- 
turned to plaintiff $50 and no r>ore; that en or about :.ctcb«r 
15« 1914, she deoiHfided froat defendant the return of the balance 
of said Kicney; that he refused to return the suae or any part 
thereof, but wrongfully and unlawfully kept and converted the 
aMse to liie otm use. Defendant fxled a plea of not guilty and 
two special pleas, but no eviuenee was presented to auyport the 
epecial pleas. The verdict cf the jury was for the plaintiff 
in the su» of $2691.14, of whioh $541.14 represents interest. 

I'laintiff »8 story substantially was that defendant 
had been the physician for J, r. aebree, her husband, for a 
nufflber of yeara and she had known hlaj for ten years jrior to 
the occasion in question; that for ten weeks prior thereto sha 
hmA been under defendant's treatBient for dental work; that she 
was in a very nervous oondition and confined tc hf^r bed; that 
her husband was ill and had been for several months; that Hoy, 
Ur. debree's son by a fonoer marriage, was about the house ocniidfflr« 
ably during this tiaa, and that she feared ha night take acote of 




h«r acney and J«-*«lry; that upon the oocaaion of one of .he de- 
fendant*^ professional viait* to her in 3eptera"ber, 1913, at her 
heme, Bhe informed hio Vtoy haid been drinking >md she wlahed the 


defendant to take her acney, 9Aiounting to |22Cv'?, and keep it for 
her and aleo her dlanonda and h»»r revolver; that defendant re- 
fused Lc iako the dioeicnds but agreed to takr the other thini;'*; 
thereuron she delivered tc him currency asicuntinf; to $Z2oo to 
be kept by defendant, ^er hur; that thia was in the presence of 
her Bi&id, Elisabeth lioCebe; tiiat defendant took it and said he 
would keep it for her; she thereupon ask«»d defen'lant if he trould 
not put thia in writing and defendant vent to a desk in the reoM 
and at plaintiff's diet* lion vrrot« the following: 

•If anything ahould happen to me hand the enclosed 
12200 to Hr, J. K, aebree, as 1 don't wish my relatives to 
have it," 

that plaintiff tuon signed h.r uaaie, "Mrs. J, , ijebree, under 

the ^n'iting, ^/hereupon defendant took the yrriting and rolled it 

up with the ourrency and pl»oed it in hia pocket, saying in sub- 

stauos that he ^ould take it and put it in iiis safety deposit 

vault and in a day or so vhsn plaintiff was able to go uowntowa 

he would get a box for her and put the money atrny. The testiaiony 

or the nald cerroborat'S IuIb story. 

That defendant received some money upon this oec«- 
sion is not uisputed; the oontention is as to tne amount, lie 
olalj»«d he received only %X00 and that he returned this to plain- 
tiff in two paycj^nts shortly Hfter the deatii of J. .?< , bebrse, 
wiach occurred en soveober 17, 1913, 

the testiajony of plaintiff is vigorously attacked 
and alleged inconaieteneies and contradictions are marahalled 
in order to discredit her story. T© note these would make tlils 
opinion entirely too long, iluoh discrepancies do not necessarily 
prove the untruthfulness of the essential points in her testiraony, 


It is axiorostic t.H«t prrat »BJ0©t,hB«8a In a nasrrative may be on« 
of the ennrkB of itu fnbrleatlon. The jury could properly b« af 
th« opinien that th'? diserapanoleB ?r«re no m©r» than the normal 
uncertainties as to attending details of the ooourreno«« and ^lioh 
wera indices of the truth of the vltel point cf the story. 

Testiaony tending to show mental derangement of the 
plaintiff at the tiEc of eccurrenoe was pcitea hy eereral wlt« 
neeaee. it ires aaid eht vree suffering from insane delusions and 
from Rleohcliscn. It was conceded that seme two i^onths or njore 
ftftfr thf delivery of the money to defendant plfcfintiff *)a» com- 
rritt*d to thft ineane asylum at Kankakee. The petition for the 
inquest Intc her sanity was eiftned by defendant, iiho went to 
Kankakee Dec«Dber 17, 191?, '■•nd returned to Chica^iro June ii2, I'alA, 
end vma offieielly discharged «s recovered Bepteaiber 24, 1914, 
The jury might well heve tho\»Kht that these a*verse witnesses wera 
biaeed «rd hoatlle tc the pleljitiff, {>ne of t^uch witceeses was lh% 

cy Lftbrce ebove referred to, between whoirj and the plaintiff thera 
exi^5ted mutual distrust. H« eeems t© have been tt factor in insti- 
^atinj- the inquest of lunacy. Kc paid defendant ^1C( for his ser- 
Ticcs in thie Ratter. His testimony indicates violent antagortis* 
to plaintiff. It was peculiarly the province of the Jury to weigh 
all such Matters and it could properly co«e to the conclusion that 
while plaintiff may have suffered in soae respects from i/apairad 
aental f?tcult;es, yet she- was worthy of belief on the crucial fa«t 
as tc the aRirunt of money she gave tc defendant, 

defendant also arguee that plaintiff* s story is dis- 
proved by writings signed by her, Tiefcrence is mrd% tc n paper 
. urporting te have bean signed by plaintiff at the ti«e defendant 
returned her $50, whioh paper purport u to read that r>e««njber 4, 
1915, plaintiff received of )yv, uavla $50 *©n aeccunt of |l' y.» 
The body of this receipt is m defendant's cv,a writing and ttas 


•ignaturtt by plaintiff thereto is not denied. It ^as argued to 
the Jury, with oonaiderftbla bnals In the docuKftnt itself, that the 
words "of |loo* wer« inserted In tri*? receipt aftor it Jiad beon 
signed by plaintiff. 

Dofendant aloe produced e 'srittan pap&r ijhicii iie 
clained w«» (but whioh v«0 d«mied by i laintlff tc be) tho original 
writing or receipt sacecuted by d«>ff»R(iPnt et the time he r^ceivad 
th« money froa plaintiff, whioh read that tluj doferidant iiad re- 
ceived lilOO for eafe kcersing, ln«p<»ctlon of the photographic copy 
in th« record diecloeea cfinei^ernbie r^^aaon for the olalm that an 
erasure is shown at the place 'vhore the figures ftlto app«jar and 
also that these fifjures bejrinnlng the second I in p. of the writing 
are indented farther than th* first or t^-lrd linos, ?rct« the 
physical appearance of tiilB doouiaent we cannot oay tnat the jury 
should not haTe been of the o] in ion thet the amcuat originally 
written therein hAd been erased nnd the figures |.1C0 inserted in- 
stead. There is also force In the suggest ion thnt iflfhen the denjand 
was mnde upon defendant, for the balence of her nomyy in aoocrdane* 
with plaintiff's version »8 tc the amount, defendant did not meet 
this by producing tnis paper puri^orting to be his receipt for $1C0, 

There is nothing important involved in the nanner of 
the demand made by pleintlff upon defendant for the return of ner 
■oney; it was first made orally, she then made a final written ue- 
mand and the original was loft with deferuiant. l-pon the trial he 
was unable to produce t^io. but did produce what purported tc be a 
typewrittffli copy of it showing a derrand for only $2100, 

•^hla court has repeat«»aiy said that we will not set 
aside a verdict of a J«ry unless it la clearly and aianifestly 
against the weight of the evidence, aiawons v. cowtuonwealth i';di son 
Co., 203 111, App. 367; it one v. x>nk Bros,, 199 111. App, 64, and a 




large nunh^r cf other e;%9')B. ?«« *3pfrci»»lly like ^h?»t yaa said 
by Kr. JuatioG ^alkw in Blehoj * ▼, Fussji, 69 IT). 4(3; 

•The a'jrello'te court nei-^her sc^s ncr honrp the 
vltnesa«t t<»ttlfy, .»nd only sees Ua» QVidfmco on paper, lAi&v 
It all appears f»l lk», *^fce fYidercft of fl v/itoeao whom nc one» 
• eeing and hearing/, testify en th^^ etand, V70uld believe, when 
hi* eridenoe ia reduo*=>i to vriting msy 'iprrf'nr ^h ccnsjstrnt 
and truthful as that of a witness cf the niost undoubted truth 
and integrity, pro© these oonBt;?#»rRtion« it is uprrrent that 
«e should be cautious in the exercise of U\e power, conferred 
upon us by the Mtatut*^ t.f^ r*»verB» b»oPus*» the finding is 
not suprcrted by the testiiaony. 

In all avrh owp^S th«» rri* sumption ia, th?t the jury 
have donp their duty and found correctly; th«t th<? judge try- 
inf thff cBan, ?»n<^. bf»inp ir p ro»itien to d??t, *»rr/irip txccurHtrly 
whether the finding is right, and acting under the responsl- 
"bJllty of hlB Tlr'ce, lipa '1*»terv infd ct^rr-^ctly in overruling 
the rr»otion for a new trial. These preeuf:pticns being in fa- 
vor of the finr^in-/, ^"W "IwavB fepl reJuct^i-nt ir- int-f ri'^irinj;, 
I^or can we adept a rule that mere numbers of witnesses should 
deterr^inR thf^ <;ufttic!n. kll irow tnyt tx^ere nre eoid<? r/it- 
nesaes who testify consistently, yet there ia that in their 
rjnnnf^r rrhich iE-pnira th?r fyrce, if it dot-e ret -'/hclly dc^stroy 
thoir testimony, of these things we can not Jud^e, because 
we do not havo th<' mfeana. 

^« <.»»'jChe jury J|udg<:? of the manner and appearance 
of witneasee en the 3ten'3, 'heir Et'rrcunoinga, their inter- 
est, their prejudice and feelings manifested in the case, 
none of v.iich dr wc see. Ve Euet, tiv-vref ere, leave the 
()uestioa of credibility and the worth of evidenos where the 
law hrs vl»c«^d it, vith the Jury, and decline tc dicturb the 
finding in this case," 

And in Am er loan ^:xpre3S Co. v. Stuart , li)4 ill. 3V0, 

it was said that this court should not reverse unless the verdict 

wfeB clearly and manifestly against the evidence, oven "if sitting 

as jurors .fe might have reached a different conclusion than that 

of the jury." In Butl er v. ^ iftittegmn , 196 III. App. S2c, the 

words, "clearly and Kanif<»atly* were eaphasised in their appli- 
cation tc the weight of the evidence. These propositions havs 

been many times repeated xn a large nuiaber of oases in this atate, 

Givin^s careful consideration to the record and tne ar^^iments of 

counsel, we are onnble to say that the credenoe given by the Jury 

to plaintiff's state»ent as to the amount of money she delivered 

to defendant was ifaprcper as being clearly and manifestly against 

the weight of the evidence, and we therefors have no reason in law 

to reverss upon the facts. 

Th«r« w»s no reTrr»ible error in tiie rulings of the 
court upon the evidence truohing the mental condition of ylain- 
tiff . ihe waa not adjudged inenno until some tij»e after tho oc- 
currence in question, and must in law bo presimed to bo sane until 
adjudged otherwise. Yitcorob v. Vantyle . 04 111. 571; C. H, I). Ry . 
Co . y. rills , 91 111. 39, and in civil actions one alleging insanity 
has the burden of watabllshing it, Austin v. Auatin , 260 111, 299, 
Sren the insanity of a witnesa does not necessarily entirely destroy 
the YRlue of the weight of Jiila testiiuony, and the jury was properly 
instructed that it snould consider the insanity as determining the 
value of plaintiff's testimony. It was for the jury to determine 
what credit should be given to the testimony under the circumstancas; 
Kelly T. l;eople, 29 111. 267; and a person so mentally deranged that 
a cmaervator has to be appointed is not IncozBp^tent as a witness, 
but hi a testimony Is to be weighed by the Jury under the usual tests, 
Chami-lcn v. McCarthy . 228 111. B7; teople v. itirlKht , 256 111, 221. 

There was no error in raling against the hypothetical 
question subaltted'to or. H. I. Davis. It includes what the witness 
saw or learned three mcnths eubeequfnt tc the date of the occurrence 
and ^loh was not testified to. It contained elements having no basis 
in the record and did not call for a conclusion to a reasonable de- 
gree of certainty. 

Coaplaint is made that plaintiff was permitted in the 
presence cf the jury tc »ign her naaie for the purpose of permitting 
the jury to ooaipare this signature with other writings. The oases 
holding thlB objectionable arose before the enaotment of the statute 
of 1915, Chap, bl, sec. 52, which provides that handwriting aay be 
proved by comparison by the witness or by the jurv with writings 
•proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the court." The signa- 
ture was evidently proved to be genuine tc the satisfaction of the 
trial court and was under the statute admissible. 3uoh signatures 


are not nec«8»&rily incompetent vhen £jad« yos t Xite^ laotaa . 

It ie argued that the plaintiff having signed the 
receipt for fifty dollars en acocunt c»rinot be Allowed tc questioa 
it, fend ••peciaXly thP ijcrde cltti«if-d to haye been subsequently 
added. The occuiaents whion were questionc^d vere uubmittcd to the 
Jury and it was fcr therr to deterrin?* vyhether or not there had 
been alteration. As wtrs said in H&yfe s v. yagner , i2o IJl, ii&6, 
•The (question whether there hns been an alteration in &. contract 
and the Intant with which it has been made are questions for tha 
jury to detpnrine frojr. all the circuoistances." 

Other points and alleged errors upon the trial are 
not cf a nature to require a reTereal. upon the entire record 
no sufficient reason has been preserited requiring a reversal, 
and the J advent is therefore affirmed. 


Hcldc:::., I. J., andT DeTer* J», ocncur. 


198 - 25970 


Appel|.e«, ) 

j fkh-mh FROM MmilCIi'AL COUEf 


KLBAMOR H. B. MKY}«3li|, )/ 

Appellant, )/ 

219I.A. 647 


Defendant has appealed from a Judgment taid to be 
for ^1893 entered against hint in a suit tried by the court to 
recover compensation for certain improreiawiti made by plaintiff 
for defendant on a hotel building in Chicago. 

This Jud^jsent should be affirmed because we are bot 
informed by the abstract as tc the statem&it of claim, affidavit 
of defense or the judgment. Ho attempt is made to abstract the 
statutory or coauoon law record. The failure of the abstract to 
present the issues or the jud^ent has been repeatedly held suf- 
ficient grounds fOr affirioance. Bishop v, Loewus, 63 111, App. 
351; Dean e v. Michigan strve Co., 69 111, App, 106; Slia v. 
Societa K. 3. di i,. £, , 203 111. ^p. i<i78. The Appellate court 
will not examine the transcript of the record to search for grounds 
for reversal. Love v. Dick , 177 111, App, 98; Kieshkowski v. 
Bo Strom , 179 111, App, 73. 

There is also basis for the olairc of counsel for 
plaintiff that the abstract is entirely incomplete; many pages 
of the record and exhibits being omitted, 

We gather frsai the argument that the case hinged upon 
the identification of the final contract between the parties, 
Ihile we are not obligated to do so, we have examined the record 
sufficiently to be of the opinion that the trial court was right 
in finding that the contract testified to by the plaintiff v/as 


-tac, y: 


.tn V' 

•:-'nr'tT«''^ 'Z'i' 

:ut r.ji 


10 5 

the real contract. 

The secondary evidence as to the contract was properly 
admitted* ae the defendant, who had pOBBesslon of the original, 
admitted that it waa either lost cr destroyed. 

There is aozae suggestion made as tc lack of eTi- 
dence of perf ornjance. We think it sufficiently appears that all 
of the work called for by the contract was properly perforaied ex- 
cept the instftllaticn of four lavatories* and tifxat plaintiff waa 
justified in refusing tc install these because of the failure of 
defendant to oake pa^/ment within the time provided by the con- 
tract. Defendant was repeat«*dly requested to make payaient as 
had been agreed upon, but refused to dc so, and plaintiff was not 
required xn face of sucii refusal to put more mctiey, tixee and 
material into the building. 

The finding of the court made due allowance for the 
four lavatories not installed, and if there were any errors in 
the computation, as claimed, such errors are not pointed out, 

For reason cf the faulty abstract and upon the 
loerita, the jud/Tment is affirmed. 

fioldOQi, J, J,, and Dever, J,, concur. 


2X9 - 25991 



)l?ARGAHKT A. >^ARTIK, dS^ing ) 

bueinesB qs ^artln Aut^ i ivery. 
Appellant, \ 


219 i.A- 647 


Plaintiff brought suit, uTlej»ing that she mwi» in- 
jured while R pa9aen(:;f-r for hire in an ftutcmoblle or taxi oab 
operated hy defendant. Upon trial she had a verdict and .1udg» 
raent for |5C0, Defendant argues here for reTereal on the ground 
of non-liability and prejudicial errore during trial, 

Defendant operates an autc liTery business. Upon 
the dav of the accident, January 26, 1916, plaintiff telephoned 
tc defendant's place of business and ordered a taxi cab c^ent to 
her place of erapl^yment . She testified that thp re ly was the 
cab would be there at the hour named, at whic:i time the taxi 
called for her, the chauffeur i^nnouncing his arrival by say&ng. 
"Kartin Auto l.ivery;* that she told hi* ^ere she wanted to go 
and got into the taxi cab, wiioh during the Journey ran into a 
snowdrift, stopping the vehicle suddenly and throwing plaintiff 
from the seat; that the chauffeur, instead of going down another 
street srtiere there was less snow, drove again into the snowdrift 
and she was Rf:!;ain thrown frow the seat, striking her left shoulder 
against the window casing. Arriving at her destination, she told 
the chauffeur she would reojit to the Martin Auto I, ivery for the 
services and he acquiesced. tShe subsequently called a doctor, yrh.0 
examined her and found a fractured clavicle, i-laintiff paid the 


liartin Auto Livery toy check for the taxi cab ajrjd raccived a re- 
ceipt frora defendant. 

The only aub«ftantia.l v»riano« In the testioucny ie 
as to the telephone conYrtrsation at th<5 time plaintiff ordered 
the oab. 15arl Martin testified that he id the dcn of defendant 
and einplcysd by her; that he received the telephone aieaaage froa 
plaintiff* and claitoe that he then tcld plaintiff that on account 
of the anew they were not running rheir taxi cabs or. jide streets 
but only en carl ine streets; that they had a man in the office 
who wculd jT en the sti-eet find Mire a strange cab, but plaintiff 
denlfs that anything ims said about another cab and testified shs 
did not know that any other auto fOoncern called for aar. These 
TRrient Btcri(=a were properly submitted to the jury and we cannot 
say that the credence giver to plaintiff's version was iaiproper. 

r;ef«ndsnt did procure a taxi cab frca' the Juccrican 
<^.7\b CoRippny to fill this order, and the witness, arl lartin, ga»s 
the chauffeur of the taxi cab instructions tc call fcr plaintiff. 
Under these c i re iJii stances defendant was liable fcr the injuries 
to plaintiff caused by the negligence of the chauffeur. To para- 
phrase what la said in tne opinion in Smith v. Devlin , 127 111. 
App. 492. ^en the defendant undertook to furnish the plaintiff 
a taxi cab and Bent to her a taxi oab and chauffeur, such taxi 
cab and chauffeur became pro hac vice the taxi cab ana chauffeur 
of defendant, l«argaret l-artin, and her duty and liability in 
respect thereto were not affected by the fact that she had bcrrowsd 
or hired said taxi cab and chauflfsur from the Aaerican Cab Co., fo» 
the purpose of furnishing sarae to plaintiff. 

Complaint is oaade of the entry into the case after 
trisl had begun of wr, Kdward ?^aher, as a trial attorney for plain* 
tiff, ordinarily this would b« objectionable, although in this 
case only one witness had partially testified. Waen ur, U»h9t 


•^ 9fi9n&tir tJjio icXbo f: 

did aiipear he made an off«r to interrogate the jurors 13 to 
whether they knew hjjn or not, but this offer was declined and 
after acme oollequy ccunsel fcr defendant v/ithdrcw objec- 
tion and tiae cause proce^^dnd without any objection on his port, 
jPurthfTBiore, tnis point does not app^^ar in the written motion 
for a new trial, Failure to SFeclfy this point was a waiver, 
Jane way v. Burton, 201 111. 78. 

it 10 argued than thr court ocmwitted prejijidicial 
error in sustaining an objpction to defendant's offfir to prova 
that the Ain«^rican Auto and Taxi Co. carried plPintiff; that thii 
company i^aa in the taxi business, liiring chauffeurs, operating 
cabs, and carrying passengers, and thnt defi^ndant had nothing to 
do with hiring these chauffeurs and had no connection v/itti the 
iUnerican Company, T-;ift competency of this ia predicated upon the 
assumption tnnt the special plea denying ownership of the t-ixi 
cab luade ownersiiip an issue. This is not true, hs the declara- 
tion did not allefi« that defendant owned the vehicle; it alleged 
operation and, in' lav/, the taxi cab was operated by the defend- 
ant althougn uHh may not have owned it or hired the cxm.uffeur 

It does sufficiently appear in the record tiiet the 
defendant, yargaret Jart.ln, never h?id any interest in the Ameri- 
can Auto Livery Co., and the character of its business was tes- 
tified to by its superintendent. Plaintiff's cese is not based 
upon either ovmerahip of the vehicle In question or F^nir interest 
in or control by the defendant of the buain-'tSB of the AxnericJwa 
Taxi Cab Co, Her case is based upon the prlncipls stated in 
amith V. i)evl in , G ^ujpr a, 

Inatruoticns offered on beiialf of defendant and 
refused were prcperly refused. They seek improperly tc inject 
the issue of ownership into tne case. It is said that other in- 

ifi 1S;)iT0« M' 



■tructlont ar« object ionablt. but In what respect we are not 

Plaintiff's theory of her clain lao in nccord *lth th« 
law, tne y-rdint of tha Jurv is iustified fron th«! •THance, and 
the *»ilp^-*?d errors upon the trial do not require a rrr«r8al, heno« 
the judntent is aff irmad. 

Uoldou, i, J., and I3e7«r, j,, concur. 



231 - 26003 

#tUaAi AHRiLKii, • mlnef, by 
HJe?lFY A. AHREHa, >ii8 next 
friend, \ 


▼•. \ 

*1B>;R'3 LAUBDiRY, a ci»r jura- 
tion, \ 


Oy ClilCACO. 

219 i.A- S4:7 


VillifUB Ahrene, a minor, by yJLa next friend, in an 
action in tort for damages resultinf from the bite of a dog al- 
leged to belong tc and to bs in the posaeesion of the defendant, 
upon trial by a Jury had a verdict and JudRcent for $275. The de- 
fendant aeka that the Judgment be reversed. 

It ie o«id that the court committed reversible error 
in the oral instruction given to the Jury in which they were told 
that two persons, Henry Klein and Jacob '^eber, who had been loada 
defendants, were diamisaed froi& the case, leaving the weber*8 
Laundry as the sole defendant; and it ia argued tiiat from this 
the jury might infer that the defendant corporation was kept in 
the case because the court deemed it guilty. The instruction 
does not bear thia interpretation; it only tcld the Jury that 
the case had been dia'&issed as to Klein and weber as individuals 
beoauae there waa no evidence that the dog in queation waa in the 
poaaeaaion of either one of then, but that there waa some evidenes 
•perhapa* touching the question aa to whether the dofi *»• A** ^^* 
poaaeaaion or control of the company. Thia was not the expression 
of any opinion as to the fj'cts, but was simply the statement that 
there was some evidence on this question, w/iieh the Jury already 
knew. The instruction Is not open to the objection that it pre- 

•AW W-. 

sumcB to pass upon any fact cr is bpsed upon the assumpticn of ax^ 
ultimate fsot. 

It is said tlxat the verdict is maulfestXy against the 
weight of the '•▼idence in that there ia no eYi donee that the de- 
fendant possessed or controlled any dog, or that it failed to mussla 
or properly manage, control and guard it, or that the defendant haA 
knowledge of its Tlcioua charaoter. Ve cannot say that the jury 
was not justified in returninf;; this Terdiot. In addition to the 
testimony of other "vitneases. there was the definite testi/aony of 
one of the eri>ployes of the defendant who had been working in the 
laundry some four years; she testified as to the presence of the 
dog and that she herself had been bitten by it. Henry Klein, 
president of the defendant company, adiuitted that to his own knowl- 
edge the dog had bitten three people; that sometifiieB it had a muszle 
on and sometliaes not, and soffietimes had on a cnain and ether timet 
was wiUiout one. 

The plaintiff, who was less tixan ten years of age at 
the tim? of trn? occurrence, testified that on a Sunday mcming, he 
was sent by uis father, as was custcmarv, to defendant's laundry 
and found the front door locked; that a man from the inside told 
hiiB to go around the aide way, and when he had gone a few feet 
around the side the dog jump^^d cut and bit hisj. 

There is virtually no dispute as to the facts as to how 
the boy received the injuries, and there was sufficient evidence of 
possessicn and control of the dog by defendant, knowledge of its 
character and that it was unmusailed and unchained, to justify the 
jury in its conclusion. 

There is no sufficient reason for a reversal and the 
Judgment is affirmed. AjrFIRllED. 

Holdoa, >, J., and Dever, J., concur. 




255 - 26027 

copprtners, ft\. 

ALBVRT i;. COOK, *^ 


. 641 


Flaintiff*, real estate brokers in Chicago, brought 
suit for payment for aeryices alleged to ha1ie been rendered de- 
fendant in procuring Maybelle C. Barrett to aign a written con- 
tract to excnange certain of tier property for property of the 
defendant upon the term* proposed by defendant, for which ser- 
vices defendant agreed to pay pl^iintiffs a ocranission of 3 per 
cent of the value of his property of $200,000, amounting to 
$6,0(0. upon trial by the court judi^tcnt was entered against 
defendant for tiiis aaount, from whion he appeals, 

aea|.eotive counsel have discussed at seme length, 
with nuiberous citations, the question of the legal relictions 
between a broker and principal and the oircuiastances under which 
a broker is entitled to a commission. There is virtually no dis- 
pute as tc the legal principles involved. In our opinion this 
case turns upon the facts presented by the evidence. 

^ith reference to the suggestion by plaintiffs' 
counsel that as no propositions of law Wfre submitted to the 
trial court, such questions cannot be raised in this court, it 
has been held that this is not the nile in the App'.'llnte courts, 
-City of Chicago v. Bar tela , 146 111. App. 180; lanak i v. Chicago h 
gorth Vestcrii K^. C£., 181 111 . App, 565; Pducaticnal Aid society 
V, Bush Tecur-le ConBcrvatory , 187 111. App. 250; Bradish v. Yocxw , 
130 III. 366. 






The testifflony wa» presented by four witneeaea, two 
for t^aoh aide. In the fall of 1918 Ben Wilson, an appnt for 
plaintiff u, disouaeed ii4th defendant the exchange of property 
owned lay defendant in Omaha for property owned by raybelle Clary 
Barrett in Georgia, The following year thia was again diecuBsed 
and in July, ISlt, defendant agreed, if fileon would obtain a 
conditional contract signed by »fr, and Mrs. Barrett, to trade 
their Ball plantation in Georgia, subject to a $&5,0U0 laortgage, 
for defendant's Otualjia building, subject also to a $55,0(0 mortgags; 
that ;>rtf.>r the Barretts had f^one tc omaha and inspected defendant's 
builvling and iU should be acceptable tc th^i, the defendant would 
then go to Georgia and ex^aslne tne plantation to ascertain whether 
the trade would be acceptable to hin. Defendant says he then told 
Wilscn he rould vmnt his superintendent, j, 3, Jtaton, to gc south 
with thejB for the purpose of Inep^^otinfe the Georgia land. Wilson 
testified that at thia tirae, in answer to an inquiry, he told de- 
fendant that in case the trade was consuoimated MoKey & loague 
would charge defendant the T?e«l Kstate B«ard rates of ooBunission 
for their services as brokers. i:'urBuant to this, on August 1, 
1919, ft conditional contract looking to the exchange of the 
properties was signed by the tiefendant and by J/rs. Barrett, sub- 
ject m the inspection and approval of the propertlfts by the res- 
pective owners, the Barretts went to emaha and inspected defend- 
snt»a property and indicated their satisfaction with it. soma 
weeks afterwards defenaant, kr. Wilson and l^r. Barrett left Chi- 
cago for Georgia on the trip of inspection, liX , Staton joined 
the party and Jilson was told that ijtaton ^me to inspect the 
propRTty for defendant and to advise him in the matter. Some 
three or four days were spent insp<=^ctinti the Ball plantation and 
»lse another plantation owned by Krs. Barrett. The party returned 
to Chicago about Septeoiber Ist and some days latsr Wilson called 


:-iia ■«-< 

•9 aitiki 

upon defendant and was told by defendant he had Kude uf hie mind 
not to make the trade. Wilecn says that afterv»arde, about ijeptera- 
ber I6th, he called upon defendant and was tcld by hljn that he 
would trade if Irre. Barrett would put in the other plantation with 
the Ball plantation, subject tc a ^75,000 mortgage and take the 
Omaha building subject tc a S75,00C luortgage; that aubseQuently 
he secured the ccneent of the Barretts tc thle iroj-oaition and a 
contract to this effect was drawn by plaintiff a and presented to 
defendant for signature, but that after holding it for some time 
defendant refused to »ign. 

Defendant's version of this latter ccnversation is 
tb9t he informed -aril son that Stnton bad an int^rest in the {aiah* 
property tc tho amcunt of 025, CCC and that Staton was opposed to the 
trade; that defendant finally said in aubstr.nce he vfould leave th« 
matter to Mr. ataton and that if 3tatcn was willing tc put his 
mocey m as a upt^ulnticn in the Gsorgia lands and was willing to 
manage their sale, defendant would consider it; that to another 
agent oalling from the pl»intiff s. hft said th'^t he .Tould refer the 
matter to jtaton; that subaequcntly wh,en Wilson presented the form 
of contract incorporating the new deal tc defendant for execution, 
defendant said he could not sign it until 3taton hod passed upon 
and approved it, later Wilson called upon defendant with a letter 
to Staton waich Wilson had prepared and asked defencant to sign, 
but defendant refused, but prepared a letter of nis own dictation 
directed tc ritaton. which he signed and gave to tilson to be pre- 
sented to Btaton. Wilson says ho did not irrmine to see Staton, 
but said that he would think about it, and after talking It over 
with one of his associates he decided not to see Staton. This 
letter was ruled out as incompetent by the trial court, but for 
reasons indicated hrreaft^r we think it was ccajpetent and material. 



It is «• follows: 

♦'September 27. 1919, 
Jr. J. 3, Staton, 

K&iikak«e« Illinoia. 
Dear ^r. iitaton: 

Tixe boar^r of this letter, rr. Wilson, whom you hava 
met, ciesirea to oorivtrae with ycu on the transfer proposed of 
the Gfijaha iiuildirii, for Uie Bftll Ranch and Greenfield Hoyston 
ranch, resi ective properties clear and free from all inouBibrancs, 
excepting; and aarne morti;afees at-,£,rei>&ting f!75,r.(iO.OO each. So 
far as incumbrances are concerned this itee is equal on ooth 
properties referred to, 

l,r, Viilson figures that he has aecured a wcaderful 
opportunity for you to invest your int rest in the Qtcnhm build- 
ing, nnd also feels that even though the development idea wiiioh 
you and I liave diacuaaed 30 thorcu^vhly be not even entertained, 
the ch»noea tc secure the greatest ar.ount of revenue be in fftvor 
of the two ranches referred to in prnf f^rence to the Omaha Build- 
ing. I hnve exT'ressed myself fully to you as b<?ing of the same 
opinion, nfevertheless I do not vish to Inf r that this should in 
eny vrsy influence ycu cne way or the other. Your money is at 
stake, and i v/ould naturally want you to be thoroughly satisfied 
in your own mind ns to the benefits to be derived U^ereby. ir. 
Wilson seeiiis to be very fair anc? ccnacientlous and I therefor* 
feelB tnet a conference with you to more fully digest the 
varirus views end opinions in so tnirrrtant a matter is in line. 
J take this at»nd. knoTRxnf; firmly now you feel towards your 
faaiily and your own inclineticn, therefore T am reluctant to 
ever 8ug{-est in this case, other than e.tove set forth, and I 
jtay add the fell owing: 

If the hall Ranch be of soil suitatjle fcr live stock 
purposes or pecan and peach cultivation without too nsuch fertili- 
sation neoesBRryu it would see.j to me safe, cn the c'iher hand, 
if It be not a fact or proven, i would still question the venture 
from our partict-iar standpoint of developiricnt , iinlesu aijain veri- 
fied, by you, mysslf or both of ua. With an iiupartial sentiment, 
I ate now putting tuis proposition up to you for your i inal decis- 

Thanking you for the courtesies in oeiialf of kr, viilson 
and Mr. Barrett, 

very truly yours, 
(Sifr-ned) A, E, cook.* 

The next joove In the matter was a contiaunicatlon freot 
the attorneys of plaintiffs threatening defendant with suit unless 
the ccmniission claimed was paid. 

Staton's testiiBony corroborates defendant's. He says 
that wtien they left for Georgia Wilson ^wss infcnned of his interest 
in the inatter and that Wilson said it was up to stat on whether the 
deal would go through and that he, '.Vilson, "wouldn't make a deal 
under any elrcvonstances unless I was perfectly satisfied when I 
looked over the property to make the deal." There is also evidence 

that defendRxit and Steton had been asaociated in business aiattera 
for many years; that 3taton acted as aupfTlntendent of defendant** 
properties besides having an interest of his own in the tiuaha 
property, and that if defendant aoouired the Georgia properties 
it inyclved 3taton*s remoTal thence te handle them. 

It seeif.e tc us clear that only one conclusion can be 
drawn from theae fRcts» nansely, that at no time was there an un- 
conditional contract betwten the principals for the exchange of 
their respective properties. The deal v^as subject to the inapec- 
tion and approval not only of Krs, Barrett and of the defendant, 
Cocic, but al 30 cf Jtatcn, representing and advising Cook, and on 
his o^vn behalf. There is scarcely any denial cf the fact that in 
the first rrcpoaition the consent and approval of sitatcn was an 
essential factor and a necessary condition to defendant's accep- 
tance. It would therefore seea higuly improbable that defendant 
would ccnaent to the second propoeition, as claiEod by i.l{<xii tiffs, 
without a^ain subaiittinp it for the approval of oiatcn. Vhe let- 
ter before referred to ( >€f(Rjidant'3 xhibit 2 for indentif ication) 
ws tiiink clearly shows the condition of the proposed trauBaotion 
at that time. It ia convincing as to the situation, and plain- 
tiffs, thtcuci. their rej.rQsentntive,«rilson, were fully infonusA 
as to the npccssity of securing Jtaton's approval, 

fa are of ths opinion that the two letters - defendant*! 
exhibits 1 and 2 - should have been received in evidence and con- 
sidered by th€ court, The letter (exhibit 1; waa written by ths 
defendant to t/.e attorney for plBintiffs in answer tc a dtanand for 
coiruri jaiona, in Morte n v. iiarnej f» 14i ill, App. 3.ij, it was held •• 
saterial under similar circuxiiot&nces txiat the recipient cf the 
letter inade a dsnlal as soon as he had any intitijatiou that ths 
brokers claimed he owed them a comiuiasion. 

The other letter was, as we have above said, adtaissibls 


as tending to throw light upon th« facta of the situation and at 
aff??«ting tjti« probability or Iraprobebility of the variftnt atoriet 
of th# vitnesaeB. F«opl e ▼. jyicC»nn , 247 I\l. 131; Hunter v. 
Harris, 24 111, App. 64o; Black ▼, y« » 3t. h, A I. Hy. Co .. Ill 
111, 561; Knapp Printing; ^ i jinding C£. v. Guthrie . 64 ill, App, 

The trada which wfis the subject matter of negotia* 
tions never wne consumraatftd. It was the poaition of the defendnnt 
and understood by plaintiffa that no tr^de oould be made or oon> 
tract therefor be entered into without the approval of staton. 
Such approval waa never obtained, and f>s the brokera* oomniiiisiona 
were conditioned upon the ocnaiuBBi&tion of s binding contract. 
they are not entitled to jud«;aient therefor. 

For the reasons above indicated the J|udgHi«Rt ia re- 
versed with findings of faet, 


Holdom, 1, J., oonaurs. 
Dover, j.. disaents. 

255 - 26027 P THDIHGS OS' FACT, 

we find as facta in this oa«« that the defendant, 
cook* did not agree either expressly or impXledly to pay the 
plaintiffs a oooauissitn of 5 per cent on the value of his 
property of $200«000* amounting to |6,000* or any ooBmissioa 
or coatpensatlon whateirer, and tixat the plaintiffs did not 
procure a contraot betweer4 the defenoaat, cook, and laybelle 
Clary Barrett for the excliange of her property for iroperties 
of the defendant upon the t^rt^s propoaed by the defendant. 

270 - 26043 

?RA1^K H. BAyIb. ) / 


') 0? CKICAOO. 

TMJEO. iJ. W. ZUkSTBIH, / ) 

219 LA. 647 


irpon trial of a 0ult uvon a promisaory note ths 
verdict of the jury m» adrfrse tc plaintiff and judrgBenv of nil 
cayiiat waa entered thereon, from which plaintiff appeals. The 
note in question -^'aa dated Aufrust 16» 1916« payable tl.irty day* 
after dftte to the order of plaintiff, for O2.or*0» and wae signed 
by defendant, it contained a pover of attorney tc enter judgment, 
which was done, but tfubnequ'ently under order of court the Jud^ent 
wat optmad and defendant was granted leave to smke defense. Judg- 
ment to stand as security, upon trial the jury found in favor of 

The :^esent nots wau given in connection vi/ith transao- 
tions between these parties <*hlch uave already been under conaiaera- 
tion by us, in lixtt opinion in pavis v, tfolf ct kJ^. , number k;5757, 
filed by this court ^arch b, ItfaO, ws gave the conflicting claias 
of the parties as tc the fsots. That cnse nl sc involved a promis- 
sory note Kiv®n by the defendant. Zumstein, to the plaintiff, and 
ia that case also the jury found against the plaintiff. 

The sole issue is a question of fact as to whether 
the note was giTen as part of the purchase of Florida lend by ths 
plaintiff to the defendant, or was given solely for accommodation 
nnd without »'.y consideration. 

The jury could properly bf.lievs that in reply to ths 
induc«£.«nts made by the plaintiff to the defendant to persuade hia 
to purciuise Kiore Florida land, defendant said that he was through 


\tSv (», 

wltii Florir^a l-^ndis «nd hsd nothing aiore to inTesL in them; that 

upon the request of the plnlntlff that the defendant assist him 

to aoquir* nors land \)/ al^?ning the nete« the note in question 

was executed ; th'xt there 7»a3 nc consideration therefor, but that 

It was given solely fcr plaintiff's ucoomEaoaation and upon ills 

representation that he would take it up in ten days, as we said 

in our opinion in the other oase - 

''The oredlbillty of the witnesoes is virtually the 
sole saatter to be ioterrnined, an i the jury v?ith its opportunity 
of seeing the witnesses upon the a:nnd is smon better qualified 
to pass upcn this tha*' ia a court of review, Thero in not>;iag 
inherently impoBSiblw or itiprobnble in iiumstein's version of 
the tranaaoticn nnd ho is aupportod by apparently dlumtcreated 
witnesses whose stories arr^ ccnaxst^nt with each other and ths 
circuiiiatances, v/liile a Justifiable doubt was raised «a to Biany 
particulars of plaintiffs testimony. However, it is not neoes- 
aary for '.his court to dcteri:'sin'5 definitely which of the ft'^i^'^i** 
Is telling the truth, Utt are o.^llcd upon to detern.ine only 
whether the ctvioluaion of the jury vas joianifestly against the 
weight of the evidence. It .?ould unduly extend tnis opinion 
to narrntf? the rasny details wAich might properly have persuaded 
the jury to its conclusion. Having these in amd, together with 
all the circumstances involved, we are unable to say that th« 
jury clearly was in the wrong, * 

The judgment by ccnfessicn rae entf^red October 17, 
1916, and IRovewber 17, 1916, defendant filed his petition in sup- 
port of his iootion to open up or vacate this judtTsent, J laintiff 
now urges that the court was witjriout jurisdiction because the mo- 
tion was not made within thirty days after entry of auch judgment, 
under section 21 of ciiapter 37, Illinois statute. This statuts 
also provides tliat such a Jud^yBent ajay be vacated or set aside by 
s petition setting forth the grounds for vacating; which should be 
sufficient to cause the juditment to be vaoated or set aside by « 
bin in equity. The petition in question set forta in detail the 
tranoactions between tVje parties tending; to show that the note was 
signed as an accommodation vritaout any consideration, Je hold 
that the court acted properly under the statute, achmal^iauaen v, 
Zukowaki . 183 ill. App. 305, Defendant was guilty of no leohes, 
•» his petition was filed only thirty-one days after the date of 


Furthermore, plaintiff w«nt to trial upon the issue 

formoci by the petition aftpr the juafjment had been opened up. He 
thus wfiived any nni all objection to the auffioienoy of the pe- 
tition. Lock a V. a rs il o ^ . 179 111. App, 1; arttnj Hftcific i jot el 
Co . V. : inkerto n» iJ17 111, 61, 

The burden of pleiintlff 'a brief seeraa to be the 
alleged Kleconduct of the attcrn«?y representing defendant. 
We hftv*- examined theae complninte and whil* it is evidifant the 
c«se w»8 sharply tried and apparently iwith nomti feeling between 
oprcfflnf: nttcmeye, we find nothing ^rhich would warrant a revereal 
on this ground. 

Objection wao aiBde to instruotlona given by the court, 
but it is not made tr appear that the errcre in this reepftct, if 
any, are of sufficient importance tc require a revereal. 

From a consideration of the record it is not i^oasible 
for us tc aay that* the verdict of the jury ^'as clearly apainst the 
welfTint of the evidence, and the Judgment will be affirmed, 


Hcldom, }', ,1,, and ^^ever, J,, concur. 


294 > 26066 ' 




V8. \ 




impleaded with t^e CIMf OF CHICAGO, jOlOTA (l4R 


Plaintiff brought suit to recover compensation for 
personal injuries. Upon trial a verdict was returned finding 
the City of Chicago not guilty, the other defendants guilty, 
plaintiff *8 damages aseessed at $1250 and Judgment for this 
amount entered, from which the street car ccmpanies, hereinafter 
called defendants, have appealed. 

The gist of the declaration was that plaintiff vat 
a pasaenger on one of the street cars of defendants October 8, 
1917; that in stopping the car to permit plaintiff to alight 
from the rear platform it was negligently stopped with the rear 
platform opposite a manhole from which the cover was missing, 
the supporting rim beneath it having become worn, rusted and 
decayed; that although plaintiff was in the exercise of due 
care, she unavoidably stepped into the opening of the manhole 
and was thrown down and injured. 

There is virtually no dispute as to the facts. 
State street in Chicago runs north and south and is intersected 
at right angles by 63rd and 64th streets, 63rd street being the 
most northerly. At the time of the accident it was the custom 
to stop cars to receive or discharge passengers at the near 
crossing of street intersections. About ten o'clock in tJrie 
evening plaintiff was a passenger on a southbound State street caj?; 
as it approached 64th street she indicated by pressing a button 





' ru-4fii- 





that she desired to leave the car at that street. The ear stopped 
on the north side of 64th street at Its regular stopping place, and 
plaintiff, with a fri«Bd, was the first of tha tvo to attempt to 
get off after i^he conductor had opened the side dror to permit thoa 
to alight, irlaintiff stepped frcm the platform to the step of the 
car ana tnen stepped down, and her left fcot went into the uncoyerad 
manhole, the leg entering as far as her hip. There was evidence 
that the cover was down in the bottom of the hcle, the reason be- 
ing that the iron rim of the manhole wl^iich supported the cover 
was eaten off with rust so that about half of it was gone. 

"Ilhile a street railway company may not be resi^onsiblt 
for the condition of the street, unless it be between or in the 
immediate vicinity of its tracks, yet it will be liable to a 
passenger injured without nis own fault, in consequence of 
stopping its car for the passenger to alight at an improper or 
dangerous place, especially where no warning of the danger is 
given tc the passenger," (Thompson on negligence, vcl. 5, 
section 3525.) 

This rule is well established. West Chicago St. K;R. 
Co . V. Buckley , 102 111 . App, 314; Slocum v. leoria Ry . Co., 179 
111. App. 317, and many other cases. Defendants seera to concede 
this to be the rule, but assert that in tne instant case there must 
also be proof that defendants knew the manhole was open, or that it 
had been open such a length of time that in the exercise of reason- 
able care they should have known it. It was not necessary to sup- 
port the charge of negligence to shovy the length of tixae the man- 
hole had been open; it was sufficient to show it had fallen into 
auch a state of disrepair through gradual rust and decay that it 
had become unsafe as a landing place. The rusty condition of the 
rim must have existed for soma considerable length of time befort 
the cover fell into the manhole. Reasonable care dees not ae«i, as 
•teicingly assumed, that every time a street car of defendants 
•tops at a street crossing the conductor or motorman should first 
alight and examine carefully street paving and manholes in the 


vioinity before per.'citting the passengers to alight. The jury 
might properly conclude tnat at least some inspection at intervals 
should be made in the exercise of care for the safety of passengers. 
In the present case a slis^ht examination of the condition of the 
manhole would have disclosed that it was dangerous to alighting 
passengers. This could have been avoided 'bj instructions that the 
car should stop elsewhere. To be urtiolly indifferent to such condi- 
tions is hardly consistent with the duty of exercising the highest 
degree of care and caution for the safety of passengers, which is 
the degree of care the law demands, Thompson on Negligence, vol, 3, 
section 3475; Appel v. A, G. at, i. T. Co ., 2o7 111, App. 563. We 
see no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the jury as to the 
negligence of the def enctants, 

Ilaintiff was not guilty of contributory negli^^ence. 
This was not her customnry place of alighting, as she had intended 
to stop at 63rd street but was carried a block farther. It was a 
dark and misty night, and while it was true that tue ligute cf the 
car were burning arfd there was an electric light in the rear vesti- 
bule, these would only serve to make indistinct the condition of 
the street v/here she was alighting. It is well known that a per- 
son coEiing from a brigbtly lighted room is momentarily blinded when 
stepping into darkness. The question of plaintiff's conduct was 
properly left to the Jury rnd its conclusion en this point will not 
be distui'bed. 

It cannot be said that the aY«rd of $1250 is so ex- 
cessive as to require a reversal, plaintiff's left leg was bruised 
from the knee tc the hip, also her left arm; she complained also of 
pain in other parts of her body, and it is claimed that there is a 
large hole in tue leg. She used crutches for some txme and claimed 
she was still suffering at the time of the trial, iSlhile the amount 

r^s • 

of the award may be large, the injuries are such that we could 
have no proper basis for concluding they are so exceeaive as to 
be disproportionate ta the injuries. 

i'or the reasons above indicated the judgment is 

Holdook, 1, J,, and Dever« J., concur. 

325 - 26097 /[ 


A. 6. Sl'KSCHJgli, 




WILLIAM LOaSiK, \ / Ol0^flfi4-ft 


The defendant, in an action cf forcible detainer, 
upon trial by a Jury suffered defeat and has appealed to this 

The defendant, a dentist, occupied the premieee in 
question, a suite of offices in an office building, under m 
written lease from the plaintiff. The lease provided among 
other things that the offices should be used for "physician's 
offices, for hli&self only" and for no other purpose. In and 
by the le&se he also agreed that there should be no cooking 
therein and that ho objectionable noise or odor should come 
frcoi the preraises and that no stove should be installed. The 
subetantial question upon the trial was as to the violation of 
these conditions of the lease by the defendant, While there is 
a conflict in the testoBJony, the Jury properly cculd believe 
there wss coolcinp; of steak, onions and coffee, aocompanied by 
the sound of frying grease and noisome odors in the offices 
leased to defendant four or five times a week. The jury having 
found this as a fact, there could be no question that this was a 
violation of the conditions of the lease which justified its 
tejrmlnation by the landlord. 

By the terms cf the lease the leasee waived the 
necessity of any statutory notice. Kost of the cases cited witli 
reference to waiver of notice are concerned with cases of non- 

payment of rent, ^/e are referred to no decision holding; that r 
tenant vho has violated such conditions of his occupancy is en- 
titl ed to notice where such notice has been expressly waited 
in the lease. 

Complaint is made of questions asked by plaintiff's 
attorney, particularly some which are said tc touch upon defend- 
ant's nationality and patriotism, of course such laatters had no 
proper place in the trial, but axamination does not disclose 
anything markedly prejudicial. At least we doubt if defendant 
suffered any disadvantage* as the names of both parties would 
indicate a common national antecedent. 

A suggestion is made concerning the instructions, 
but there is only a reference to them as general and vague, and 
this does not give us sufficient basis for holding thern to be 

There were no reversible errors upon the trial, and 
as the conclusion Of the jury was justified upon the evidenoe 
the judtinent is affirmed, 


Holdom, I-, J,, and Dever, J,, concur. 

350 - 26125 

Titfc tmii-ix OF tim state 

Defendant in JsrroXi 



ilaintMf in 

; 3RH0R TO Uhl: CRUsilliAi. GC'JRT 

219I.A. 648 

MR. JliUTICl liCoUI-;EL^ DiaiViHED Tliifi Oill^ION OP Th>- COUliT. 

The defendant. Calkins, was charged in an indictment 
with doing certain acts which directly tended to render a certain 
female child of the age of sixteen years delinquent, by ravishing 
and carnally knowing her. He pleaded not guilty and upon trial 
was found guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment. 
His motion in arrest was overruled and he was sentenced to two 
months imprisonment in the House of Correction, He sued out a 
writ of error from the Supreme court, alleging that the statute 
under which he was tried was unconstitutional. The supreme court 
held that the constitutionality of a statute was not involved, 
and as this was a criminal case belcw tne grade of felony the 
writ should have heen sued out of the Appellate court, and the 
cause was tranaf erred to tiiis court for review, leople v. 
Calkins , 291 111, 317. There ia no oill of exceptions in the 
record and the evidence is not before us. 

It is said the indictment is defective and insuffi- 
cient. It ia substantially in the language of the statute and 
charges that the defendant "did knowingly, unlawfully and willfully 
do certain acts which then and tnere directly tended to render a 
certain female child under the age of eighteen years, and of the 
»ge of sixteen years, to-wit, one Julia Kllen jcCanney, a delinquent 
child," (Chapter 38, section 42 hn. Hurd.) In absence of a motion 


.joiiJoA. - 

to qupsh this l9 sufficient. Under section 408 of the criminal 
Code an indictment is sufficient which states the offense in the 
terms and language of the statute so plainly that the n^iiture of 
the offense may he easily understood by the jury; and it has been 
held sufficient to charge the offense in the language of the 
statute when the words of the statute so far particularize the 
offense thet by tfteir use alcne the defendant is notified with 
reasonable certainty of the precise offense with which he is 
charged. This was the ruling on an indie traent charging indecent 
liberties with a child. reo|)le t. Scattura, 238 111. 313, ^e 
have also so held upon an indictnaent liJte the present one. i-eople 
^' Tyavia* 2C2 111. App, 226. 

Argximent is directed towards the concluding words of 
the indictment as follows: "to-wit, did then and there ravish and 
carnally know the said Julia Kllen McCanney contrary to the statute 
and against the peace and disunity of the same leople of the state of 
Illinois." These .words are superfluous, or at most are intended 
only to inform the defendant and the jury of the particular acts 
done by the defendant tending to contribute to the delinquency of 
the girl. They are hardly sufficient to charge the crime of rape, 
which is a felony. If the evidence proves the ooairjiasion of the 
crime charged in the indictment, the fact that it may also prove 
the elements of another crime does not make void the conviction of 
the crime charged, I^eo pl e v. Karpo yic h, 28B III, 268, 

The above considerations sufficiently answer other 
points made by the defendant. 'He are moved to repeat what was 
said in the opinion of the Supreme court in this case, su yr a, with 
reference to the points made in the brief of the defendant consisting 





meetly of assertion without elucidation. 

We see no reason to reverse and the Judgment is 

Koldom, P. J., and :oever, ,"., ccncur. 





22 • 3fi^a 

^msa* i'. <m-A\ 

2191-4, 648 

SBauvnon mm mtum c^ tm cwht* 

8«fca(U«t i2i trr«ir« i>«nt«l f • ismxtv^ filed « bill in 
ettttitr 0«o)ci»e GnferMneBt •f a MrtaiA oont^r^et •iit«ir«d lnt« 
lMt«e«a hiM a»d plisJLiitiff in ATirffirt jr«ife» K. Kmmii, •» e«Mip«B-> 
•Atsiy d»}iiae«ii» nak^ig also •» |iarti«a detmwAem^ ttarr A Ktmii 
otmsByit * «»vf«r«.ti<m, and &ll of iia stoakhAldera. Fre« 
a d«03r«e ia MKplaiiMiit* e fafftr a«M 9f tlM d«foiKi«Bta l&cva 
taed mkt «HLt« odT error satdi ot^rs heem appaaiaA* Qm Mwral 
oaaaa tuxva ^«n <KMis(»lida%«d f«w luarii^, 

J9eoiaI.d«Humir« wtve tiXmA Iqr •a«fti <i«f«aA«at aaA 
•v»rxiil«(i axoe^t aa far a« tha tiill ecxiglii apaoifie parfannaaaa 
agftiaat tlia laaia«ra «t aartoitt s«ir«nta«n ah-^jraa ef th<^ staak 
karaiaof taf' raferred %a* iiafaadaaia than f Had a jaiat aaaaar, 
raf«r«»aa mm aai4a to a aaatar, a^tjaatioiia and axaapii«Mi %• 
hia rayert «ar« •varmlad, aa4 tlia <i9«rae aoafinwd fa tiM aaia 
^a f iadiaga of fact aai aaaalttaiiwi «f lair* 

tim Qoatraat aa miiali tlw Mil ia ¥a8a4 io aa 

"tlULa agreaWKl vada thia 2»%h daar «f OUly, 
A. i • 1915» iMtwaaa Idm P. Xomb, yart af ilia first 
yart, anel Gonial ^« OHirr, party of tlia aaeind prxt, 

Ittiayaaa tlM partial to thia amaaMt hant 
baaa far aaoy yaara Jointly interotftad ia tiM eaoAsat 
aad aparatiag ef a aaohiaa mhav iMyuiiataa ia Chia««a» 
e^ak Couaty, lixinaia, aaA 

^HmraM oaoli «f tka yartiaa harata feaa 
liavatofora oaaad aad rainra^aatad a «aa*telf (t) 
iaterast ia a&$A iMOlfioaa; tmA 



t« Ta»iflii» <itlMHr ferMM, «wt aO** %tt 1»ikm a •mrtifioat* 
fmr «lxt^tliM« (id) tSwarma tt 8io«k to libi iMtirtsr of t]i» 
first viart iMiensM «f Mwaejr loaned to %im omt^vny Vy 
tiM said party «^ tlM f iy«t 9«n| moA 

Wmrtamvm #icp«iw ih» 9^)^ ef the s^oMid part 
IttM tt<mtlMtt«4 t« 4«T»t« bia filtlXl. «iMMPgy «ad induttrr 
t« tikt »ai(l •tttvryrifl* <»r %iaaiia»»s teret«f«r« eoiditottd 
mm tlM ^wiw & EaHUi SkMMUw t^«apaiqr and new e««auot«« 
m tbt i^wirr 4 Mamm Qmfpmnyi mtA 

Vwf^mJt, ^KStmntM iam nedd »lBlXl«(t mwnAmit if 
tlM sia<l yattar O^ the »«««iid part h«Vt «MitiPi)«it«d t* 
tht 9iioe««» «r th« Ccmj^mut ma It is <l«Qir0ii9 «i ttot 
ptat «r th« p«rtir «f tht first part that »«id party «f 
tlM» aa^siid part idinli eastintia t« darata hia tlaa tmA 
«>MS83r ta Urn sueoaas ^ »«i4 liu«&jiaea» 

3Saw» tberafara, the faXloaiact a^!a*aaaaftt0 urm 
hazatty catarad liita %gr tha portla* harata; 

I.* It ia aisraad that fox the prGiiaitt« eertifieati 
4tf «taak idiall Im issatad to all the p«irti«B idsa hava aclvaoaad 
KOlMy ta tha v;aMpaiiy «r i3s» 'tttml» vlt tha par va^liia af aaid 
a taoK, ta ait, ij^OO f«r i^Bmm* 

3. It ie twetltmt nes^^^ that a» a«0B a« tha Cwpany 
i« al»l« 96 ta do, ttaiit it iOmll raparohaaa fr«i tte partiaa 
ahtainlng ataiA for nanaya advanoad to the ^aiipaay oitoh etoah 
99 iaaiiad »i tha priaa af |80<i pair ehara aaA t«at itt a.^itioa 
tharata Iho c«Mp«iy lAtaU pay ta ItSm <'• Kqimiii far hie aarrieaa 
ia fiaumeiai tha Oaanaay ahmi it «a» aaoaeaary ta beta f taaaalal 
aid« tha atat af foariaea lamdrad datiX-tra (0i,4Oe}, aaid pay* 
»Bat«, howaYar, ta ha ia Ii«a af ««id ia fuXi af «ax dividaada 
eu»B«d hy tha oiaq^aay dmriag tha yaar i915« 

1^ dmaidaratian af said payaaata aad aaoltuocnta 
■ado 9 tha aaid ^arty af tha first #&trt, J^tti F» XMBaa« am&» 
«Lth tha purtiy i^ the »4$ooad paart thot 1m viU ohtaia aU 
ata^ aatatRffiiUUig (examj^t tite tan lOKsurae aew aanad hy the 
partiae barata o»ah ia his aaa aaffa, aahiag a total af twenty 
iritojraa) end aiU eit^r tant th«a |s£te tha traaear^ af tha 
a<avpeay «a e«a«>«tay Ga^:«t» or &&W99 thn.% same ha vaiaaaad ia 
•40mX payta ta tha pariiaa hesata, tha parpaae of aeid 
e«ya«aent haiag ta aaaaarafl* tha »&id p<i3rty af the aaaand 
jfiar% ta davata hia ekiU ead wmtgy aad to aaiataia taAm ia» 
taraat la eaid fettaiaeas aad to fiirthar aaid parpaaaa that 
oa far as My he la^ai end paaaihla ««id partlae horata 
iihail ha aqpiai in ^mt mA a«itroi aad iataraat ia eaid 
btiaiaaaa aa aaaa aa tha paymata ehave epeeifi^d have baaa 

Itaaaci oar haada aad aeal thia ssdth day af 4tely« 

A« ^. i9X5, 

(>ii«aod) yihn F* Kaaaa (eeal)^ 
(^icaad) aoMMi ^* immr (^ai)« 

far auaay yoara aoiglotnftat -mKn «ad defeadaat Joha ?' • 

vara partaars ia a aaofaiae a^iop haaiaaaa* la 19(yf the 

>naineaa «aa iaaarporatad aader the aeana 9t umaatr ft tmrnm Wacfti a e 

0<Hp&ay, httviae a oa^itai etoafc «f |8e»<W0 dirided inta 80G rtH&ree» 



•f fAiidi Murv «ai Zmm» each took 140 sharvfi, aoA mirllttr yartMrr 

mmtay lie h«d Xoimed lt« and &lMMi #10,000 in liHl** AlMttt tlutt 

ilaMr tbst cflffltpuny mxu t «5orf^(aljMd, ehasgtii^ it« iumbm %« ^oiGrr & 
K4wni C(3«e^«iiy, tmd m^cMd i%a ^JS^itaX W ^t3«S00, ilri-ded iate 
12S i^kiar«»» Itie rXd ^to<ek w;<8 tuamed in smA n^Mnlmd^ waA fttmuflfe 
%9 »gr»flt » t liitY* «%»» IsfliMd to 44»ury and £afM»n 10 siuurvft oa^H 
•t tti« nev c^te«k, and i» B«««&« Simmmmv X eibar* t« rsyX^M Iwf ^XA 
staelE, «»$ l«t«r an a(.UUtia»«l tdiara, vfhloli ^^^ 4ttXy 9«i4t for* 
'i'b* rermatniKg idtaugareft timr« left Xii ilie treasury. h&%ier 63 af tlM 
tirciaMUpy** eliwr«» imrtt isiesMd t« ^^aiMm Xa ^ayinent, 4« %« el^^lasd, 
of hlo Xoim of 1^300, \n% eieeoydlag to ^^Htin? «dB4 tDo «tXIe^atloiio 
9t hits l>ill, mmrmly to oaoiivo imcdk jp«9aM»»t« '%iX« ttelr toetlMMiar 
Xe oonfXletlJig; on tli t BuD^oet Urn atdntteo oC tlio aootXng of tkm 
dlreotoro iioXd Kiagr X, X9Xi), ^lium VM ^mm&ay «ao in tliio .f InaneioX 
6tr«oo «r4 tho otook of tim hmw eauteny not d»^i]o>d oorth MOiro tluoi 
ptof^ Mftatoin KoMon* h% tiiot tXiOB Oitirs' w»o yvooideat ol' tlio 
oMONMir, ffMwn ooar«ti«(ry and tiroAflity«r» ^iia thoy villi B»«ai« dpoRoov 
6on&3tX«iii«^ tteo lioi^d of AXretstmn aa& eonsMflood all tlae etoeJOwldoro. 
M tiiat MMtXacu ^t whioib lax of tliott «tro prooont, tsumn, aooofrAXng 
to th« ninsies tlioroof « ^iA «fO 4o not T9g&** «s ouooooof^XXy In* 
powdMHI, ro9orte4 that ^i^oaoor k^ poiA for a^id aiditiond alMuro* 
Hu&t Hm oflaqMMur IumI r«c«Xvo4 ^,700 firoai a&rtaia |»«rtXes (aaiio 
d«tfoiiAaaifto to tlio MXX) for tho ptw^bmm «r »toolc »i ^00 9»r ftoaro, 
aad th«Lt bo had adraaood to tiM ooi^My ao a Xooa lilOO. flMnro* 
nyon, »d re«it«i in tho MXiaatoot 

*0a iMtioB MMlo, oo o o art loi anA oarriod^ «bo 
9«oeidottt and aoovotaary ^i«»re tbovoupon editBorlaod 
and dXroctod to iaauo eortlfioatoa of stooir to 
Ite foXlowiiig ^eraotto Xa tSio f oX Xowtog n—mi ta, 

f oaro adYaaoMi to th«^«urr S i:a»i» MadlKlao coai^a^^t 



/••«ili 9* Kfltttm 2 aOsuiariMi) ^ii« Vy«d« w, Petem 8 
aliitrt'0} '?mBe$M K» ^^^ii««)r 1 £}h<&r«| Jolm T, SU..nia •! 

dat« of th« next awual iMettas 9jf U^ 8i(»€cMu»ldei>«, tlaaii XeskVlJic 
only S3 »hra'«» lA tJie tTeaflUfy. 

aoaustint la /^le^st, tr 3.i&t«r in tli« »it«ttffn ^ X91.&, 
whaa wajr dnBaaAe varo l9riii«;tn^ laorenjied %«i»iat»« to tl»» tmmtmay^ 
Urn ^rlitea ceatriMt «hi^ f&tnm %im liaais of t^ i^ilX h«(r<9in, i»»« 
(Sva^m «9 a»4 8ign«<l ^ Jairr «adi KsoMm* 7(»t »aaA rtaoea not 

Tgith the dat* 9f s»i^ eidsk e«rtifi«at«8, Slut Mil <;JUtt0*a th«t 
th&n» <«ma a coe^.}X<it« tmildi^tcaidtiB® 1i«tiMi«a ^^attrr and K&awa «i that 
lAna th'^.t thoy ahotilA ^ aqual la 9ei^»sr« e^atrolL »aid latarevt ia 
tite Q<mpsmy, 1% 1« ve »aMrt*d l^r i^'^atxrr, «a4 4«ai«^ by c4nu»n, 
tiM IfttittJT clftiiniail that liaaii 8t;g:x«®fii»at wtm obtaSaad whiX* ■•'.mxnt 
waji witte'^At his tat9<H4«4i0i a«S«tiatiag with tlw» f!r»9p»et of ^cttiag 
a ^OOgOOO eaatrftot for Vm oowatty, i&nd tli^t auvr witisteld 
knowlsdgpQ titoi*4Hif fiTfwi i^^noa uatll aftor tte <Mmir»ot 77;s>4» 9i£a«<i« 
nils e«atr«t«t vao oa^o^ently ontorou iato and with oti»rti 
Wrsufiht sroiftt profits to Ui« coapaasgr* 

^hateYor laroro the f »oite «t t1x« tino of sit^alag aaid 
M^jpoenant tbe r«Rord cootoiaa flA satiof aotoary roeord of aa und«x<» 
otaading os JFtely 36, X9%% ouch c^ -laurr caairai* If there wo 
moii i2» imdorotfiaadiag it i« inooiusii@t<mt v^ith pludatiff *» thoc^ry 
Uk«t the 65 fi^.aro6 ivoro ioaaod to r^^tasn tarn eolJUiteral oeourity 
for hio Xoaa to the ooaipaayt o**^ ^» ''^^ ^^^ ^ ^^^^ *^'^ control 
aU tho ciutotaadiae otoek. iaeh tto/serj is nttorly iaeonoiotoat 
idth iliat took pXmm at said stooliheXdero* iM»ctlng» itnd aXoo with 
ihr ^ -'- that tho 63 (dtevoo iMf etoofc ^vm oahootpoatiy roieaaod 


i» flfft «\: 



lag «f OK* isio«MioXd«fa ^iy ^» 19M^ &% •t&iU^ I'lmffv me p- <»««»«, 
and tfatt 3itw fftrtifie^^tea ;mxii aigoda hy I^iis iui pr«aid«$irti of tiM 
ocMiaMMty, a»4 ai«&«l«iida of 000 imr o«int» th« only 4iYi.d(»«uXa <nw9 

th«f i»m»A »toek, including said 6d Tiil^i^a^jd :^arei«« If uoy 

OX' h'c r«oupd)0<l si^lA omtv^et k^^ t«i/.M aiad #rafar«il»Io it is ia- 

osqplloal^o* iiAiosi tlMiro wms mff loioit wmmy in t2»tj ta^&amu^' of 

t!ie MMVtany* Its st)it«ut4 not have iiwintcid tm |»&£^Oi^»ii«o of Vim 

o«iit^2k«t iSHste<i:^ of ao<:9iic»fs<:|iH; In tit>8 d^.Y^roifn of tkM ixmmym 

into thr iMBii^. of etreaiewpo to tl» oon&rr^;^* 

^iihiXo tiie li^Xl «diMir^« th/tvi suoh. dlTersicm uuj& ia {Mr* 

ime»c9 0t & avaatm^ of Kansa to ^^oanrn'^i^ e&iil C3 £tu:af«» &»ci (UYidonAo 

theiNif ritn to luo oi»a ujso« it oozit«xlius ik<> r;;To~mv»to c^ fo«t cffit* 

otiltttiag fnmA, am& tlioTo ««i^ t0 isroof edf iiCtaeJ. fr^^d* (^ tiw 

contrsory, tho Xvc-aisl fii«p;,-«yts ihsr. couciuaion IQiiit t^iC aaiO. :^to^ 

«»• isi'^tc^ to fjmmn in ftill »«tt2«iiifttt of tl»c Xoieii cj^ not i a 

fmrnrity «j»p«f««r. He, tSiorefore, telel. tfce is-gaX titlt? tJ-ioroto 

viih tb.« tt]ins^®oJi|N«Ki4 rlgltt to trsxusfer o^d tit<Mil£ to Wb<!«ov«r 

iw €31000 • It MRfiWo ttoty tberefOsi^Q, isibo^^her thisrs w^^» lis^ 00B» 

ftidoratioo for th«3 tronisfor of » |»oarti)^ th£ir«of to hi^ nviffs oaA 

(^iJLdyoii^ «iw «t«« msOm psattUfn d^t^wismi to t%» mx%, in tl>» 

on their part 
aXiODxtoo of my trmOi/lt im plmiii th^^t noither tl3e UrsAtsfovooo of 

oaiA »teoic« aoi* tbo p^artScmmrtt of tko 17 »hBjfi>«» or Boo^^io X« 

9«MO]r» the pATdheu^r of 3 iflMVOO* liM 9oi4 v»2tto for thoir 

otook, cmXd bo o<ioqNll.a«4 to i^art witli their logAl Utle to 

Ui«ir arosfMit^ti^'O sh&s^'oo* 

It io 04|i<aiy |>l«|]i thaR^t taw oii»3N3r 'tion, lM>t lieiiic « 


INKTly to \h^ s^speiiG!im)S%t 9(Xkl(\ not h& rsKmir'^a te oom&ly vith lis 

•V40 l^ofugh Umy oonir^ia^ n )Q£«^QfiV 9f li» ^i»<:^, hiua no Mud* 

Xt is evidczit* th@jrol'9re« Uuvt Oi^ m^Mr^ of th« eott* 
trn.dt izs mdi« that A ecuvt of @qaiiy i^^^xiaot eidi'^o^ i^ i^ptteif&o 
p«yf03mai«e tfeswrcitf. In &i;&mJU.liSi# "'^'' ^3.i» ^^^^t ^«^*« It 

ms in tlM» inatjsiit ^um* with 2c»st4€%« that it «^&uld not tte eti» 
f^^roetd vrith(«it tlit aoti&oitl at a. Uii:rd parijr. It w;:4.ii t^Id tii^t %h§ 
P£:;rtioo O.0U1A not @i%fftt06 "by i;iXl for ^.^elfie ]^i'.for;s«A««t, oaA 

e«urt •€ e<saity '^1% iiot d&Qrs:^ dcae^ipts*'^ 

on «oi&ci^ie.t olmilstr i^koi^ Otf fi^&i, i» pertin^^nt: 

to for tM«» j:*en«ay« »07 is Oioyo atjy^tdag ia tJNte aatauro 
of %h9 trmt&e^iem^ I'lAoe no ^%u»X frecud 1,^ prorod^ «liar 

on <»etlon &».i i^^ Oh«»>ld oot latxfo 1»ooit «tpi^ropriato» ** 

osaMMlag the coBtir&«H is v.'^id a@ %«t«ttoa tlio ^aftioo iho»«to« 

at if i i ^ v« ■■■elf > ioe XXX* 19t« a»oib»r oo^ for ^poelfio 

907ferimmc« of o eoniriiot to ooXI sim^^m of oiock, tlio coiU*t ooi^L; 

*To author isso a dscsroo for ^oii^ovmmoo of omii • 
«<iitty«ot, it auet s^poor th»t tho r«»««&y {^i law io 
Iiia4o<poit} . Xi' iiioipo w^ o oonti^Mrt for ti^ oalo of 
nUmjcnn of £2t»<$k« otUI » tjr«!ito}i of tho oontrast* 1m omi 
bo ftslly coBp«iaiN&lod in ^^mmeeih at Xftw.** 

>oTo th« iHoroo ia effect is nothiag more tfaon « iudpoist for 

•aotaim^ f07 1»?oaA of the ooatroet ootlw^^d ot o oort^^in yetltto 

Ittt upoa tl»t Btook KowHA ogrood to have purc£u*ood» to«othor vitb 

i&TidoBAo therooa^ iooo nlkat it &o ooiiolttdtt4 K^noa vaM eotltiod to 

«l hi>^ fuXflUMtnt of tkm ooataroot. oouniag tbo eeatraot io 

V«did • vhiOh 90 aood not ptiaA «90ii • tho o»m» ro^vtit &mlA \m 

•%toia«4 ia an aetioa at lo»* Tho 04mi:;MiOt ia ao %-mnt iMlng 



f«r3a«UM» •f tlM coatri^t «u*« uir^id, «t«fll »« la4lM«, tHat th» eon* 
ttsMt ia iuiilat^rfil, wimttjas ia mtttiaity, tli«N( ImIiiq n# pronlM 
on tho ptsrt of .^mxvv pt any lciad« 8Hii mwnm mam to e^ntlmio to 
&^r99 tim o<w9«ayt flaart alJKi vithmat e«»ii«id«r)s%ti<m or miv tim 
XlHlt* If tho hiXl MAot iMt dioiififMMl. «o «o lioXd, on the ^maA 
aSitff fttfttod 1% ia uMaooooofi^y to e^mnld^r tho eontrs^et trwk 
oUftov ipoittts oar Yiov. 

^m» qttootioa is ifniood »» to Uu» yi#it «r aiiar othor 
partjT lM» tho suit iiam ttjEWOii, aiK:ain.!.;t ^mt n^^mf tho deoroo io 
itiroetod, to &, roviotv «r tlM df»«ro«»« l^lsw th«oi<y of tlw l»i3il is 
ib»ii^t fualA 6a «ibttr«e of ih«! ^t^ook wereioonod to KiuaNi as eoll«tei«I 
Olid not ia fUUL oottlciMSRt ^ th>o Xoait, imd ok thi&t th«?n3i»y SNKdecfitioa 
of tlw stook a3o.mXA havo lN»eia r*<>i^lrod for ^o bwief it of thfO 
n m v M t J f iM^ aoooaoayily tlioirefor^ of «X1 it@ ^rteciidioldoro* ao 
t)» 4o«nMt dooo not ruXljr eoixf ojm to Owt tSuiory ^teir iatorooto 
ojro •• aAv«raoiar af ro«te4 na to ^^niltlo timm to %»»>icEn nvrtae^ ond 
iho %iia.« «« %jBm srottiid oikovo stated, ahcul4 ygraporly l»e dioaiiaood 
aa to stXl disf«»i«iit«« Slio ''ftOMro wiil ^m,»vAin^^ IM reTorso<i« 
)%rid liio O¥«iioo 3r«M8!nd«4 wt%h ^ir^oXltme to Ui6mt»« th» biX: for wtiit 
of equity. 



iimixSk F« .m^^^il 


l.A. 648 


rzGK immm 

Fx-tM « di««9»« fi[» ar^llea .«uit la the i^lMum «i«iU«4 

Wanie K^^ftB, Iha wif* af I9»m '• XitfiMi« latuUirl^ally i«4 «• 
pmr^Uoa n^ illifi f«y ^* %»• fitelIAr«ii» ^ixi«ra B* Xmmii «M 
Cliff #f<a XiMHMi* ^^'yitii «6 err«r uti^ siMNi out W tlit ofteHr 
^MTeadaMic. /\X1 Hair* Iw^n 0MHi»l,t4»t»d Iqr o^p^^r ^ tblo eouit 
for boariag* ^ooordingly refoarosoo io li»3Pol|r »ftdtt to on (pinion 
filod tiftio AoQp yoirioi»ing tho «rit of orror aiio4 out ly ^«i»i ^« 
Xmmii, (eoa* so. SHoea) ono of tlw iltffoaA««t« to tiio %iXX» is 
ibioh «ft taoid that tlio deoroo shottXd bo vtvorood for wm% of 
o^iity ia th<» biU, onti th* omoo vmtmimA «$th diroetiono to 
AiflBioB ih» bUX oo to aUl dof^aftaato* tt lo therefovo ttanooooooiy 
to toitertite tlw roiiooao tltovofOtrg it aypoairiag^ tiO thtroia ototod, 
UUit tlM latoxnot of o«flii dofeodost io oo sf r«eto4 ae to glto tbo 
9U0kt to oiudi to 999—1 » mm tat o writ of orror. 

•tUlor i«i Mi»ifcitt, ^Jm ooimtJr. 

^ 1' 



•v.:iS' ^oh; 

mSi 6 


24 • ^0«4 

%mmm !»• ;j«mR^\ 


ai^i^idMit ia '^sts^x^ 


*rdy < 

19I.A. 649 

U tte biU of ««ii^liilnt fU«4 lay MumX wurr. wb iilil.«li « <l«ei«« 

SflMtn, imotlMnr fJ.«f<aii&ciit^ anA «l» wur* l ^^f^ f^ jiur«h&t««r« f«r 
fliXi rsilum ^ ftio«K; in tJtite -.mamt f« Saaon «Mi»?tay» «»1»« » 

teartag with ««»»«• Ckm* Xo*. ^39063 aitd 29064 iMVli^t •«>» 
staatiaiajr t3M Mat %iU#, ia v^Hicih m h«f« «lii« dair fU«4 
tplftiMie retatrslJig saIA ^l««r»* and ywnrtltiit tlw imiim far 
«iMA»»«a «f the bUl« ^Ibftt ^nui msM im iHmm atiftiaiitt, twins 

of re9«Uti«ii. 

Qridlay tMA IikMImUv H*^ «Mt«ttJr« 

k» ir 

•5 • m&m 


mm ommt u^*% tsmmm 


219I.A, 649 

]»9)JLQy h«rrl»g MiM»t»vl fa^ r?:4l»&j;?t) odf l3t£&jc£'@4 t^-? paig » -BimM^xm 
audi la -ma e-raitt of d@.f «»ijli In f^NrialiDi ^it^^etfifMla* slvia^; t3m 

X% %» ^;ffp9XXmi%^9 eflwt0Htleiia that i% wmy awld «■» 
«*f©«i «f MtniiltttnMait aawio u|i«« cmedi f*a»» 3P«fr«««iiiaU«»« 


ivm% ths F«??i«»<l Af cimtestaMlii^r ivn» mam fi*«n tli« d»%i ef 
]r«i»9iet«nt«att •ffpooickUty vbttjsw the reiaet&tfuumt i»ai» lii^bM^A 
by fr-^4* 

V* \% 411 » fmd ^mm foliawlag It h/^ldlug m&% tto 9«)ri9d 9f 
llnltjiitiim for a<mi'<»9t fstmmmmn ^amw tiSNm Wm mixmteHwmnt 
tit %3a0 pnli^t An tho tl»»oiry th&« th» y«iiifitiitaiimit in m m^ 
cmtTKut fit tnmammt mA mm9 li)m -i^lf jfatetft^ i^-*^*^ '^f- 
M* "f* KttagiaifegryM («»x,) S13 S. n S43t iMllaias ttiKt TR*A1« 
the contract fox' r«ln»%ata»imi i» to ^ voipircloa not an « 
nov ««iitv»et tmt smi a webivor of fojpf^^ltiiroi it r«iiorfo» tibo 
ri^t to (^.iroid tlM> roittottttoiwait if IUi<fti«9<l ^ ttmi^taXimt 

nm rulft f oUoii»4 |» tMlgftgffi V* Fidelity .M££ 
Ifig,. ^9s^«, M'i 111* 4i^J« i« titi«it ft ^ittot»t«»e»t io aoroly o 
e^aoeilatloo of tike foxfoi1«Gr@t atiel ttbi^t tbo wri^iital poxiosr 
oentiaktaii la fiai f«roo wit&<>ut inter^ui^tioii* In ta»at amm 
vliilo 1^ 4e9th of UiJ$ iiftmtrod imJ3 looa thMi tiao yomro «dPtor 
tlk'^ x^lBotffitmwitt Of th«i 'poli«iy it wmi mre tiHw two yoiort 
«!if to2> it«» i»s3iiaiwOto«o»i tlw poli<^ "ma ftOOO]p4i»gl3r bold iit^ 
conto«stalilo« iiarfmim ofiiKtliotiag ;mt!i03^itioft on tlm mil** 
Ject the nou]ft daalinod to follow ^m tuIo oimmtiioo^l in tlio 
•'■tQtf^y atvi QthfiT obmo 9oliod on l«r ^fsUunt* and oi^Nq^od 
Uvj 3rulo of otSiov OAOto v^mrm^ to tasovoiii to tha «ff«at 
th0 oaatx>»ot to vdiitdn tite lixiiti^tiOR i« opf^lieaHile io 
thf^t or tki« original e#iilio^tion mid policy* «aid not tiio 
roinittsttod eao« 'Shim io in ooa o o ai a ioo with tlw stat«tt« iiUL4li 
mt3sa& the 9oU<9^ WMl osn^iOMtion taisjcefor tto entire oontrset 



JlHjggllgll^ m««« tliiai iipsks o«4^ isf tike 0€i»tra«i mxi timtii»o%tiS»iXitjt 

t&e pelAi^ ia 8»^ **ttt«0Kte.;;t«ife3U s#*«r lam y»».ijns f»t»i U« date«» 
&2mivt fcg? f^edtf ied i|si'^0ti«Miiii M©t iavft^lT^i h»m ism ihti% <te not 

Vim mm^tsxf*^' ^^Kiaim^ttim «f ilasikt It «^^is>ll «0«»i ttt»lMt«rir 

t0 lii^snxirt^^iUiy lM»r#]p<i i«»miitt^ » t^iXicy* llew»v«^t it is vanewissjsxjr 

49f«i!M)9 «i£r^r Hm i«pii« tl* t^ifd y«!.-;»a ft em ist£at»i&«» »Jt tM p^lisy 
Athei' tluatt tlii»«» 4<a^iaMi«i imwd in tls« statute » risi*^ i^iu^pnynnii 
^ IRNflS^BRi «a)il Yl«l-«&ti«i «f Him mtditimm of tl» ^>9XI.Qy 'ir^i£.tiaa 

to issiXlt'^^qf »v mmiX »exTric# in %Um 9€ Vi^* 

Oitiaisy smd iLAt^Hmtl, 39 » 9 cafunctir^ 

101 • ^»38S 

iKPi^AX. mam 

\ ^ / I com c«3©anf« 

219I.A. 64 9 

Ski^ wtm m mA% ^t»»n m tnii»iriMiiiii policy ie«»«4 Iqr 
d^«itA«nt em^mK/* It plea4«d thi^t tJio sottd «mi mil &mi rulA. 
iMreoHuo i^ooarod upmn f aloo and usttanitt vepimeNsnti^iioaB ^th 
xvsjpeet t« tsattof a «ot«rial to Urn riok laftde Iqt tte inaaro^ ia 
1^8 upplicr^Utm lifiaoli WMB a j^art of %lm ooatraei* A dwnyroy 
to the 9l«ft iMerlig iMieii »tstiai»9d im the grmand tl&i>t the aiitt 
ma fiot brmtfibt nitiiia tim p&ri9d of ooiit««t«MIity» a^fea&ast 
olo^^tod to otand Iqt its ple»« 8ii4 op^olod f rta tte iuagnmt 
ogoiaet it* 

flw 90li<gr oiMd OB vooitod tb»t It osui <*iitooiit«»ataiao 
«ftov ooo jpomt fron the "date of ioisito'*. vftdi^ mm on i.ieptftxriMr 
7« 1916 • iQm Aaourod died ^rll 15, 101 /« oad |Wo«fs «f dci»tk 
wore Otay fuml Jiod within 60 dajps t}iorofroBt 1»t tiss ^^otioii woo 
not o«OBa»ttooa ttiitil s^wmSmr 7, 19ia, • aoro than ono yttr oftor 
Uw death* 

Ai>polir^t cQBt^eidfi thMt tlw policy ^otKt oiWioolaMkt 
at the titoB of thB doatli «f tlM inattrod* iritea tlio Ofla»e of ootion 
accrued, it rcaaiaod oo* ao inaittor alion OHftt aoo otcurted* Xt 
ttOfVbBv coatoi^Ui that itotwi&iati^adiag tHo ][Maioy a«no4 a lesaov 


as iim Jam&^ut^ vf the policy m» to inetmtentaMXitjr Tari«0 fz^«a 
UiG provi0i<m required ^ t^b^ »tati»it>o i» )w l3is@:rtod &a tlM pi^UNgr 
tnily a,» to tlu> loagtli tf tiM »«ri»d» t^citixm m» liMito^a of t«» 

s%9.t3A%«ry ro-^ilroiasiitt ttao oaoo osi3L2.ii for tiM oonstiruotioit of tlit 

«ta1»i%«t« «iiKi urgoo thfit if it too 00 oonotxvod timt tho pctriod of 
conte stability ^stJlX runr^ on i^tev tto» doofli of t}i«» iBCHorod on^ili 
coni}tmeti<m wlia,» in iiss$ Xmigjas^ of H^fisg^^ t« lb£S4S98l* 31-^3. Ill* 
257, and .iteasji ir.j^JL£!lUCJMlaai# ^^ i^l* ^» *e«»«« «roat 
inju^tioo and ioa4 to ^mum^gkmumn i«liiOh ciora tal»s3ti»d and i0ii«& the 
l€g:i^^»tttiNii oo^Xd aot httvo o«nit«M|i3Uito4'*« tsad $ii^«o rosuXt iit 
asa>li:^itlos as to s^i^to £«ft<A yroQiKi»3r«» Tlol.ato Hift Xe«iolatiYt 

^^jRSMill^^Bt tltov«itiN»;<i froooodo to r<}olt« instanoos* «f 
ba3rdadtfp» Vhfkt aH^t TOsoXt f ron au«& oonotrtteil<»i vm&m' t«iifth 
tiao iHMuror w<mX<i 1m wittiaut a ro9Bi»^* '^thmit ■:Jioau»«isig t3imi 
lye or:rmot ooAoedo titet AofoMAsai^ wns wltlimtt t^ r€m»4y in Oi|iiit|r 
fo:r fr&ukA in proouroaamit of tito |N»li{^» elt^ofui^ it anQr te 
kM^ovoS ill 4iodov&ry of tho trmoA ia oomi inotoaooa in ti»e 
to olbU4ii ociuitaMo rnXlfaf • 'sim do "m find «ay iafl>i8»tty t^rioos 
«• to t3:i« ri^a^a or yrooocturo if moSi oonotiratotiffia in vuioi>to4» 
iir tik&i it wouid oo»t9ri£voao «^j|y oonotitutiditol 38*<»vl&ion« in 
faott oXInio ting; aucdi ooatcntioaa t^,^ ttntoaoblo vm doiai tJao 
2>^ng?»^ «f tlw <3||pv«no cmtrt In Uio oauot <^ JMBim ▼• sa«tyot>olito» 
^y-- InWftfr tf^g''^. ^^" ^-^ ^^* ^^» oiPpUeaiao to the »tnto of 
facto in tt^ isotoRt «««»• 

■^bilfj iippfslletis QontonA^ lOtat tltis ia aot a oaoo of 
itotatoxy -^onotruotion 1»ei«i»o tho ooMt^tuoy voiAtnt.Arily oontroctod* 


&9 it ad/jht do, for a short«r oont«8ta.ble p«riod than rtcfiirftd 
lay statute, jret wh«1^bAr we oomatrue the languagt of th« contract 
without regard to ih$ atfi.tato» or look to the latter with all 
its IntendoBMnte, we do not feel at lilwrty to disregard the 
XanguaiEe ezat^lOTed by our .Jupreae Court In the '■■"jniflltnili ette«f 
thtxigh applied under eoiaewhat different facts. To he iwire that 
case wae decided hofere the passage of the statute » tut the 
proTiaion in the policy in the insttaat ease, meaely, *that after 
one year the policy shall he in oonte stable** etc., and the language 
of the statute, "that the policy shall he incontestable after twe 
years from its date" are hardly e».pahle of different locaninsis 
as to wlu»n the period of centestability begins i^nd ends, unless, 
as we do not find, other parts of the statute am inconsistent 
with the specific reference to the date of the policy as the 
l)er;lnnlng of the contestable pariod« In fact tlie language of 
the statute is nore explicit on that point than that com; trued 
in the ffonahan ease. 

i^aile in that case also the insured died within Uie 
eonte stable period the court held that it w&is incunibent upon 
the insurer ither to tukis affirsiuaiTe action vdthin such period 
of tint to effoot » caaeellalioa or rescission of the policy, 
or by BuOcing a defense to the action brou^t on the policy 
within sueh period* 

i^le that oaM did not inrolto the t|uestifjn of fraud, 
wlOoli we think mi^^t be coxae ground for suoh affirmatlYe action, 
aod while, as sugc^sted by appellant, eases nay arise odusing 
soTore hardshiys to the insurer if the period of contestability hao 
run before diseorery of the frisud, yet as the statute does not in- 
clude frtmd in its exceptions to the linitation of such period, 
md its language and that of the policy are inconsistent vdth 

•ny other theory iium thrt tha period of centestability begins 
ooMtinnos to run f roia the date of the policy, -m find no 

T mmtm t9T exela'llii^ tbs f a«ta Sji t£iift a^UMl fJN I i Hi* gpti>«iti«ii 

The oempsmy iroXa»%ra*iXy fl^sd » flAunrlMtr pttriod of 
o«at« stability tikan that prwrtAtiA ^ w%ak1m%»^ miA m tiMd tm 

froift «w4 y^<<u^s t« ««»» oim Iw i»^siiur(S«i€ m agalaat |«ib|.ic x»o3.icy* 
It was said in tlie ||M^iq^^ oa^ tli»t «iaX« tHo ]»«7i<Nl 99er&t«» 
lite a stfttcttwy Ximit^iti<m its '9axp9i»a m%s t# «UU9r«r tiJiw f «r 
the di0««v«r3r 9f f r^mcl* v« c^^ittMt niiy thj»t {«• snesr wro too 
^Oioi^t f9r tli.^i vmrpeam* iMi^ 9«rri*a hsviAfS ^i^un, if t^i« oanp^jtjr 
iQ Umrehy d^sprtimd of «at luud^^at* Vimts^ at law^ it 0£>j| ht^jrdly 
OQeKPX.Ulu of tiM reni3>t «f a i!»r@ libiari^ e^trt^ot Uma the 
statute re^mix^d it to lUklee* AOoeirdiiigXy the |ttll0)ttKt ilil 

9yi;ii»7 imd ]6et4li#%t* Jl*« $9»«tt:ir« 


136 • 2S30S 


eoox c@iannr« 

■2l9I«Ao 64 9 

A lucs^neat %&» «nte3r<»d ;;(lM>l»t i#pel.iA« «ii » saw* 
fiUkd 09^»kOirit» Gild aXlmired id tatmA m mmetity i^tUt ^bkomNI 
f97 <i»f«aiMi. ;^9»ll«tt :fi:U4 l^ie (gtimrtA i»m»M iMi four speaial 

titkitib, ft|»peXl«« was tlM JMilBur^ w&b without 99iiiiid«v»ilaiii, (3) 
lli»t it smM tm e^e^mtsmAi'ti^a ne^tt tuot iMld Ity api^^llimliis i» 
<liMi e«mi?»a fov T^iue, (3) tim% it w^ giirvm f{»r a :a9ii«ifi9 
pajiMlM <ia ooa^itlAii of wa iiabilil;;^ «f ce>^|i«IIe«« tmd (4) 
tltot aiipftllaats »4^ n9l haX^^rn in ttuf» s«or«« Vefwre m!$^turit|r 
f «r V&3AM eitd %&^ tlis o»i« witii full Immtli9^t§s9 of «1X it» 
inf iraitieo* ao^liecttioas oeaoiudiiig to tiBit eoianirjr imw9 
fiJUd t« ail pioRS ex««Ft tlie »ee«ad 8M4 fmtrtli «SM»«i8ii |»i.es8« 
and rvpiioatioaa aT<»arri]Rg '&ak»% tlur not* «»>8 a«ecnsrj^fta«t|iMi 
pajKir glw» td the 9ft>*t«« y^» Urn Fliat, auad «»d^»«4 sand «l«l.iir» 
«i^d ^ Ilia t0 «j^,^ilants **!» ]^3jrt pa^nMiit* of « 9i«««xi«tiiig 
deil>t <lu« tvom hin t« the fira «f H^ferc «ad Heixe. > v^i9iM$m 
t9 the last MOfititnod jfefiieaticnaui took is«M« m tJit iMt« 
teims *'to 9«3rt |Mifai»it*« 

It mm ceiic«4(3Hl at tlus trksX that tSia n»%« iR»a m 
««««iM»d&ti«M Mt« givm ly ltlii«r t« iittt at tiM tii» tiMi 

^■:^; lir 


'^.fter lO'iK^ «f %ho n9%» «a^ ejBQuat duo thiHMOxi, e^A 

«Ti4«t]ia« was Mainly In mpport ftf a^d re4»iiMl«F8 to t)» •iy««l 
tlui% sftid ii«te «&s not &eo«9%«kd im ^csi't pnyiMilt «r FJbliit^a A<lM 
to itagMTo ^ toll** nnd <^t7f«]Kii!«t firo^etd tSio la^telp** IflMlrii !• 
olMw thet tlt« fiai flMHHt ^ B^d de%t ««« ti^rgod up to hta 
«ft«jr tbe siviug ^ oeid seto^ witl&auir glvli^s hiJi «v«4&t thero** 
for, md plaintiff ndKitted tho sote w^a vkbygt er^^itod tfi* Hlo 
ac^cnant. tho pjitiof, tlierefero, ffill^O'J to ^^taiil plaintiff * a 
FeplieatioKi to the «f oof!^ and fwortli i^poeiaSk 93.«(&« aa to |Mq^ 

lia.t tiMro «oy« &ttioir id«ii«<3 tluoi tinat of ^^^ocptattoo 
of the atto i» yavt yiq^Wftnt* if tha luito w^a talnn a» MQturitjr 
instoad of yort fMnanaont of tho -t»ebt, ae d^foiutuato thonsaolfoa 
pvoirttd« tijam tein^ f oaf a pw^mxkstimei doUt it «^i.a *for v^tlito", 
(300* mt, K«s» Xasta* Ms% of i^?« Savdi** '.* i»*« di. 9id« 431 

momdnat^ . 91 id* a«>>i «nd «iM3ro aoumwinlation vs^or io 
toiceit ''iA tho nonHd ooitroo «f %u«|iaioa» for r^^Mm^ tho Mide»r 
vill aot ha ii«to»e<l to if ho asfsoiiui it mm i^thout oDnaid««>« 
atioa." i^M y. JU>« |ff4 . %m Ui» ms,^ 870*) Homo th« 
pie& of want of cionaidomtion tmm »o% impportodt €to tlM» «oa» 
trasrr defftAdaiit* • ovn evldioMd to»dod to alMMr that Uio Koto mm 
givoA as aeoonMMatioa pesMnr ead .^sui ooourity f «r aao^^ f««* 
•xiiBtiiis todalflodMMni t« oaid tlvm^ ifttaemmt to a ooavero&tion 
h»d vdth a teooaood notfhtr tf «^d fin» at idiloh >*itii^»ahA S|»llo, 
a sttrriTiif mmfimt «r t}^ fixvi, ^yo yyoe«»t« Kr« mile wao 
eali«d %r d»f endafit, imMI ta»tif ie<a thfi^t be «ao yrsiMHit liioB «R 

Arrftngeai(>nt wae made Ijefcwe'pn 7^Xint«aad ''ogor«, thn deoft&Bed 
newiber uf tii« fir®, to th«» eff^ot thRt Flint would produce 
two not*»e yf $9C0 ««cU t»a security fcr the ©dvt^nce uMid« for )xia 
Uy tii* fira; and -lint, Alof^ Oftlled by &&t^n^tiv.t, testified to 
hflTlng p ccnversftticn Afith the deecMSO*? Kcf:«rB wr;er« the £:;iYl&g 
of th*^ ncte rygs dl&oufffted bt^fcre it <w»8 giver, ari*! thf*t ju»t 
b*^fcre it ■^ti.t f,iv«» Filler alvc iit^d ei ccnvcreution with »©id 
Hogerfl ref:nrding tfee Rote« and waa with Hint when be aelivtred 
the note to anid J'ogers, "^ilc tfce ocurt prcpwly did net per- 
mit either of them tc cive tin* ccnvcroaticn with tae deceased 
Hogers* yet there imo no ocntrndiction of Pollo»a teatireony • 
preeectftd by defenflnnts the^gelveo - ^hioh tended to ehcvt that 
notes of $5r:o each w«re to bi? delivered aa Bccuritv fcr oudi 
l«bt# »nd the e7ldeno<? ahow» thn.% tn« not« in question for 'I500, 
and another for the »«JBe amount, w^re ^JeJivorfd to aaid firm, 
and diseloara nc othrjr purpoee in <!eTivering thera, 7e think 
th«r« wns waple prcof, therefore, to show that thi» r-ote. in 
queetion »aa given and accoicted as 8(»cvirity for awch »>8bt, and 
r»8 8 thus talfn In oouree for vnlu<? and th':*r*»fore puprorted by 
« ocnei deration. Ksnce, wo tainic, the oourt erred in ita 
findinga and in entering Judi^xaent for a),^pellee« The Jud^aiDent 
for appellee will aeeordingly be raveracd, and o» the caae yraa 
tried without a Jury jud/j^ont will be entered h^^re on a dif- 
ferent finding of facte for the aac»unt ct the note with in- 
terest at 6,0 frcjn the d«t'5 , jenuary 3, 1912, as Ujereia 
provided, being ^762. Sc, 


138 - 25952 • 7IKDIHC CF F/.CTS. 

We find thst the note in question was executed by 
appellee and given to nni tprrn in due course for value ioy the 
partnership firw of 7?op*»rs ?- Hollo, of -srhioh .".ppellante are 
the aurviviiiji? tamabmr^t to secure a pre-existing indebtedness 
from the payee of so id note to fjaid firm* wiiioh now azaounts to 
$762,50 and remains due and unpaid. 

163 • 25417 


of the estttte of mwaKts Q$sjm:x, 


iiLUAX jrons Bjotxausf 


219I.A. 649 


219 I*A* ^ 

HI* wsmjmm mmtm mmm 

IMs is fta ntttioit for dawk0t« ttnd«v the statute fox* 
tiliHiis the death of plaintiff's intestate » MmmA Qjuarry. 
fhe vevdiet and Jud^Bttat vwv« feir $1,900 • The gr^emiAe ux^eA 
fev rover eal are laainly to^oiiMil.* 

It ia first ppised that in fena tho 4eeXarati«H(i i» 
« yorsoaal action for aaoenlt* MI@ the deelaratien reciteo 
the fact of an aseanat t>y blows Kin& kielqs It ie plainly pro* 
dleated on the olafti that death mm the ^^oxiamto roeolt of 
the in^nrioo aremiltine therofroK, waA the oridenee clearlj 
•listaised th® chax^e that the injurieo oere tito roeult <tf a 
hlow* It plainly testdad to ^hov th^^t doMaood oao etxuok 
in the faoe hy as>j^lXant with aitf rioient foroe to fell hin 
to the street^ iherehy eottoing a fraeture at the haao of hie 
•holX ehieh resulted in his Aeath* Bo mm tahon hoM in mk 
tuioonaciotts etato, had convulsions the follovine day, rolapood 
into uaeoneeioiionooo mA died the oeoond d«y after the 
aesattlt. The attending s^yeioiim, haeing his opinion hoth 
upon hio om oauMinatiOfa and the cireumst'^ooe of the aseanlt| 
ao testified to and not di^iputod, testified thet death 
ensued freoi fracture of the sloill re ml ting frem violent con- 
t&ot olth the paveannt* 

.;rj^f ■<*♦" ' '■■;?•;- ♦^' 






<|tt«sti<m sn% %9 hiMttm nhlcii aiuifei op^iniftzi -mut •xpreawna^ on tht 
ground thai it ignormd. that otAmr iDJ^ttrltt awar ibave tote2ir«iMt4« 
lOmv im« so sound luusis for tki* a.^(Aui9ti«ii of au«li it fftet* TIum 
«»• o9thiiig t« intiieat* « ¥i««l£ ia tlM »«f|a«n0e ef ewsdltieiui 
tliat f oXXewod th« blov* Xlw eridettM ait^P^JHMd lut on* InTaToiiM • 
do&tli frea fracttire of tlse sleall, prdTcimttoly eim«ed ^ tbe b3,mr 
•U9 afosfesajld* 

Coa^laiat tei asnde of tl»» eourt*a Xiasltatltti of lOit 
erooo oauoKlxi^tlon of the wife «»r dee««uMKl vith i*«jg»rd to hit 
hoaXth. U^ ciaestlon «KXoltt4e<l c^Xed twf m conoXuoion aaA ttot 
« faet wiUiin hor icaoisXedflO* 

)<ixo«pti<m mMi aXoo taton tliR^i defeitd^at ««i8 not i^naltted 
to tostifsr* Tiw oftso did net oomo within amy otatatory exoeption 
warrantiag hio ri£^t to toatify. 'Sk» i^dov tmA miamr ^mgiht^r 
tootif led that nfttoit dcooawod wtm brmi^t bono ho iamd a out oa his 
iiy* itiafeiidaat offered to testify that he hfi^dl IM» out on his faoo* 
r^t this w&» quite ianaterial «e Xmm as the evidence indleatod 
mt other osMise ^ death thisa the f raotttre of the ahaXX, and the 
•Tldeaoe was usdiaputed that it reeaXted frtm a faXi oauoed hy a 
blovf or a ^she^ve" a» defei»Aiiiit hineelf ^fored to show* The 
offer rejected aXoo iM^rtaiaed to ^rordo ImA with dooeased, and the 
Xatter*a attitude txt the tine* 9ut viftiether testlaumy oa the 
Otthjeot iRae within the itsliibiti<^n of the statute or not, it 
offered no jus tifi option for th« %saottlt widoh was the proxiswte 
oauMt of de;atai* liefeadaat aloe offered to contrudiot the tostiMmy 
of too «o«oa to the effect tho^t one of tho» relmtod hia before 
ioaviag the soo»e for aakiait the aaeauXt. But a denial of the 
•vbillSi had am tendency to roftite the controXXing faet that 
^ofondaat without due yr«>iroeation assauXted deceaeod aad thereby 

•* %et 



• 3* 

It i» pr«icii«ally i^xlroitted 1;^ a^ppollee that it wa» 
axvor to instruet ttaa $ury tliet iS the att&sult vsraa ualaidrtil aieul 
«iKiM4 4«atb thd Jury sd^iit umatd mmtt^mmey or piuiitiv» danb^s. 
M% tliere caa 1m> ro 4c?u1»t of <ief®ndszit*8 li«<bllity fx'oa tk«« ua** 
eontroTi&rt«4 eTi<l«n«e. Bo<Hiaik>«»4 was 60 ^mf9 A^ «<£• tua& oamlsg 
a salary of '141 per w»«k« Ho l^t a ndldtw Biidi tw© saiaor ehilfitr«ii« 
a slrX ssd « boy^ 16 find 13 yenjrs 9td imup&c%ir%Xy» His «aEp«fltati«» 
of Xlf9 under standcopA taMloo of loortalii^, of #U<ilai omirto %f%Tm 
judioial BOtioe, i Mprt^mXl y» yiftyo^j ^a,^ 293 XXX* &63 a»d eaffoo cited) 
imo sono 1& yooaro. Tho rardiot woo for |10©o, an asiouat lit would 
•am in Al»m2t ofw y«i&r mid » h&lf , Upon ^»y fair coa»ider«titflt 
of tlw «vidoA«« tlio amount of tho Tordiot oould xiot roaomude>ly 
luKVt boon loot* ^n faot it is eo low w» to indioate t&at no 
pr«ittdieo roaitltod froii l^e orronooao iststrootion* %'im emxrt oloo 
ii^^oporly rofuood &n inatxuetioin offerod Jsy Oefendant whioh atatod 
tho proper ml* of ,d«»sia»«* 'M% iiAiett» ae Iwro, there Is nothings ia 
the record fron whioh it cun %m» oooa that the glTlag or refuoiag odT 
on instruotiOB will ^arork c^ny isjury to the d@f end^ntf the giring 
or refuoing of that nmm i» «ot attdli prt^judlcial orror ao ought to 
work a r«Tcr»al of th« jud«Bi«»t ^low. (0*^8^1X^1 goal Co* v. MlWfi.l* 
1^ Ul. 12S, 139| Bot^io y. Qroen, 171 111. 4t$.) ^«ih lergor 
judgnents on & siislliir otato of f a«t« horo been frequently i»a- 
tained. In feet, a Jjud^opnt for a loos amcmnt wculd ]^ perly havo 
lioea sot aside. 

Clais io Hade «f a Yi^rianeo but there was no reasoaohle 
baois for it. 

In apite of the eoweeded errors the Judifpm»iit should bo 

firidley msoA Ifetoliett, JJ«» eonour. 

tm * mm» 

:^h ^ lu mmmmk 

EVi^ 1^* HSflDl^d^ 


219I.A. 650 


owners. Ma «ife*i» t«s>U»MKr !& supiKiri of Hum «efli «Mi&3f 

Qui »l#ii in 1917 lio emm imm €vmikt mximm^t Jmif Im<I» 
Hi0Mm itf <»d ^iM« lari^iae it &n mat s«{idiil4Mi mm% to «^««9 

i^tli twr ^Mp^oil* •!» «R» W(mi:r%4. %«> 09 %m NiMii la tlM» •tmm 
t tisio oft«&04ft la tlM iwziftlae* m 1(^9 to eHolMrd tor. UtiivlaK 
vislMUi ativto «r Iii8 vio^UnM** ttovw tor ««i tto liit«iiwii t«^ia« 
^4ia ttoii namr tMiHPi %t tov m 9»m wem l»m%m tto v«<mt iM 



X«i?t «teeta (Mwitts mm tiHiiiiwiii» He mtrn^ m& 

is^f wUJte t^t her £3sil thm itta^d tm* «ver ««i ia» Inrf^fieen pi<r««e «f 

([^«ii« «sg»iiiic lh«p luoi^ te l» »® «e*©3piy %mmm,t»^ ^mA 
l^ <ilmn^ t^t flte ifl ftmt#»4 to iw^ tt ^Mw «A It 1M» 

litem h»r m^ tsiSts Vim hua^ ^tb. him, m& ^t m» mm ttm 

wm %mGid»^ mA iimi&^-%miam ^ «fe»»i ^^ it tSm f^^Umm^ him* 

awl tim »imy lum wm wmm nnprnpi^s tm mmo^^sitxip* -imikX^up 
MtatKitt, iAma tiidKm III •onn»0li«n icltli df^r s&^rte liK^gRitc&tlMe 

not v*Mm U mth&Ti%i»nt nor &ttm»t t« «i£il.a£^ 

iv Mat (kf tlMam* tamA «Tl'i«awn> an iM«ili |i« lamm 1$m 
of aliMUny* 

ai^ldldir «daa tta%<diitt, JS*.* 

X9^ • 2Hm 



1 9 1 .A, 6 5 

4»» M lUQr ««3.<i ^ ^liA t9 A|^p&Xl««* ^]M^H«« denied tlw oontrs^t 
iHt sal* 93L«a4i]is that XtoM wem dtt« i»bu» upont » aalA weide toy him on 
A e«Mraiai»ie& tMuii»« for tdach Iw ]^emitt«d to ap^ll«mt 1^ cits ok 
reoliiag thai ^b« •aaat ^m» ia *faJ^ peqraioiit*' of the luiy i«<miT«4 
ind ttold* end tli&t tlao r«%«i»ti«a of smM cl^ok Qimotitsitfit an 
»oe«rd. tanl or.ti«£ia.otion« 

A^t;oXI«uit ooooodoo it to Iw thfi iftw that aoooptiHieo 
in full 9»i3^Bamit of ft iooisioF saiiouiit tl:a» th t dalMNi idMMm th«»ro 
ia a bg^ f^dg dispute or l»«s»t diff earonoo ooaotitiit«i» m. aecor* 
oad » tiof ctiea, Imt urgoo Huit lAiotliesr tbo diofit^o mm * JtgQA 
fide ono woo e ^oatioa of f».et fof 8a%«i«ai<m to the ^ry« 

1^ oiridoiMM dioolOMo thixt of tor the hay ^mo ohi^^ad 
8»d r«<!^i<fod o|»p«Iloo oieimd it oiko «»t of the (iu«llty 1»G«Sttia»4 
for« smd that ha ft««t word to appoilant that uiaeao ho hoard fr«B 
htii to the eoatrftry he wauld eclX it oa cosnieoioii* and iMit hear* 
iiK@ fron iiXm. in the tlm »j>«9cif ied« oeXd the hoy and eo»t a 
oboek titttrofort lose oaqpemaoo end hie ooHnieoion* on the haolc 
||tf ^iX0k woe evittea »in full pajnoBt of the hay received." 
|A9peUttt retiuniod the check, refaeing to eoceft it as fttli ?ay 





e«ftttpaei* as itontended for ^ Mb« w<r<8 sot nade witMn thr«t 
d£i.ya, ¥wo dnjrs 2U&t«]> app«Xlft« sent tlie dSMtek iMtck with tlw 
i^Wt^fistat tliat if apr^ftlXcmt did not w^t to s6e«pt it itt s«tt3.e» 
mrmt 230 "wcKJiXd Kair» t« 3.ot ilMI C(»uirt decide** • Ap;^Jtlaat l£@]?t 
tHe ciseek* hiui It cortifi^a, t»p»uglit mii the telXowim mniM 
md after it wta 1i»egaii s<aii Imfor© trial hM th® ^bift«]<; ii«tali«<l« 

XhQ]hs cam be no ground fer ^my inferenee frm nuali 
t«eti«Miy Uiaa t2mt ai^p«U&iit kxiew tili«ii 1m» tept tlie €di«4^ onA 
h&A it e«artif i«<i tliat it vas tendered g» o«mditi«ii tb«t it 1»« 
eocopted in fuli pcijfinaiit of hie olaim* 0Rd«7 sm^ clvmsa»%tuM99 
thero das )» no doubt tha!,t it Q^ai»ti1»»tdd an. aoocsrd £:iadl »»ti«» 
f actioo if ^er« ««Mi a Jiffilft fi^« <ii«pttt« «r hoiMVt differoBM 
bet«e0it tkmm as to the jMSaouat due* Ifhat tli«?«r «»« eucii ft di«* 
isute tdiftti i3m tStm^ was M tco4e?etl and retaijausdi 1»» in our 
o)pl;ii(»n« tsle&riy indicuited 1B^ both thfi plea^aiags and tli« CTideiMs* 
^^aiftt imTe the s»rit» ef tli^xt dispute i» su»t ^«£itiflfidd mor i3m 
tttst of iti» existenoo* 

I*94^fci»ig t« tise pleading it ai^eears t^t )^p«il«Kt 
%ft&9d lii» eialm tm &a ttl)«ol»t« saX* «f Um hay tii ai»;i^il««» 
lA&ioh tlis letter doniedt cXairJjat^ ih»% ;«yMXe he x^oaiined tlK» 
hay it wss noXd ttp«a <& Q«fwi»8i03i liasi» fKnd tiwit tlMt retantion 
ef tiM «AM0k ft» af«r«8a4d tendered "in fuXX poymmt'* eoiuititizted 
ea iicQOz>d eAd autiaf taction* 1!hef ertAmnm <m this immm furthtr 
di8oXo3«8 Itim umm ftttitud« of the partioa with rerpoot to tlio 
nature of tbo eoA tract betvwon %iam end the ^>ouBt da« tinder tlio 
trsmcj^ctioa «t «ad Veforo tho iiaf of t«Bd@riiig the olieo&« ftao 
undisputed e«rr« »poiidoito«i l»Qtireea thoni »» to thoir difforenooo 
■ttpported no oth«r inforonoo tlmn tlmt eppeXXee dooiaed his oV 
ligation vfts ^i«ogod to a oomBtit»i«% l»asi» #uRt«iror aMjr iMKve 

• 3» 

been tike erlgiaid stgaro^iaent )»«tiie^a th^a* If ftO« tbsr« vsui 
aa uA^«>£> Uorusa dispute cdT ^jpoIXsast * a elain uhlc^ natlMirisod 
tte dlreeted vsirdLlett for ther« eould l3« ikd q^ftsti^ii of the 
QxiaXea&a of «Ra(;ih a diepute »» x>«(|alr«d (^|>«Il«i»t» «lM aert&la|r 
understood that %h& chedfc vtrs tendorod oa the oonditj^coi t^t it 
be &6oo$»t«4 in iTaXl p€sjrja»ikt of his eliiisi* to return th» Mmm 
if Ik© did net «daili to notitcpt the eMmditieaa on whioh it wm 
Undorod. XJae I««r In saste a a^so is fully considered in 

9§Uim^u ▼• ^sjsalki i^i lu. 356*; jsaasi t. iisim* is^ ^^* ^'^^i 

s*'^ a>MBr T« grioslnaiia^y . aao id« 1^« and 23eno<s ne«d not Imi 
furthar disonsaed* 

Oridlex «id Matdtott, Si^m§ oonour* 


i»iam gm-M oammt. 


219I.A, 650 

n .I.A 



iSftHM ^3@ ^£1 #M^Utr «eM 


¥iMi m»m mA m»ix tiKfiiMm ims^ mM 

3 i«r 

Ltt04 t^ 

^«Km»4 ft nu fi 
m%^ ti»t 5 p^ mm m 

Wm^t to 

%Mm (mi>% mm 


V tMfm&iAXi^ mi^mmmtsiUmm ana fWL»^ te i^mffrnm m 

m^Oii^ im» pum%$Sf ^^mm mmit^^m^ m m^. wm maim fm 
•wtfeoir %m%& the tmiUm4f% m wfittmk* imt It 

itfi MKiailAf em i» ^^riUlllie (l@1t%a|» t«iKl«3Mia i»@1»«MSti«»'lil« 

m iga^im m i%^ t^m e^iBm tine mmmak w^talm mXX;&A 
mi wfi%im ^ml^mU* (fla^lt ^* Mlili -^4^1 ^^* 'i^* ^^•> 


ittt c»a (siMdEi jniliKi mi <ian^(imyi(KiiiiHj' xnii ilHi Hf Ifts 
iiiiaa^e tliif Itury «uhim&4 ^mam Immwi tfti'?ti?tt0%«a sue tft tOw 3^a«ir U»i*(i«a# 

tirr iff tl)« wTfttct ttmt «yL(3li a pr«Hl«» Ota »»i iimmt in l^tar %• 

fx-vMA* fOiiiNnii^ lilt pmsik^mt &t tslMa tliwi 9f mMm tt ^Mt^ Aot 

iaitxtd %» mrf99m* tm>Jim»^&i &^ Has v^ett^ m^VL^t$»!& fm Vim 
M^m^iiit tmm&Kt %^ini$Sii»€ t3gm% im mM^d mat mdA witmAm it 
mm v«mmt9$3Ba» e^nfttr t« s^l^eus^ tM» iaim^mk^tifm* 

Aii ts» '^tifsi ewi^mt^m X% ia j|^t»%i«iMia» ^wtlMur la 
view of ''^tM ||idlt»fiiiSt«» tft^tliiimi/ ^ %^ -^it ^Ti«d 9C Unee; w%0 

tiff «■':« a»t s£:U4Mrti!iir a ^iitomtti^ 1^ tfHtiB^ mmmisiemr&sm^ t9ii%imms^ 

df atM SKA !NiXy ^mm wSsAm^Wi* 

mA it i» alum d»iiD^^ ii!i»iaii»if Umi (ttiimim »0bimmA 
mm mtftiv^mit to fNam^^tittxt^ trmx^§ mA iftielSJIi^ lilett mm iaHMiamA 
,M m^ mm imt mmim *^i^yts* t^-idJc^* 

i«i mi»««s»U1»3Ui <«f ettm^tsuaiiflll ISlftt 4';f«}fidj3||t «^ Hit ittlHaNMl 

l«^ii»e it e^u3Ld fm% f^em «%(t«(lii»d ». nii»«i3» fws^mmWJi Mi»ti*?.^ 

t^ 3pe«l. &rm>A of »«i»ti(si» tfifto not fii;^t ^taiamltm^ ngmtM ftteem 

Skxt iM» litj»tameti«ata ooooi to hsm> Imtm «ff««Ml m Him m^i$*e%» 

IS^U^'^fim tt U)e£4>' t^t 1^Kt«P« W l i i tlao i' trioi %km j^Xoad* 
llio ««U1 %e tt«tJttot«»« o«i !^3risi«^pik«« or %m not iHNtt io ^«asotlAii «o 
f«fyttiii fy«B fiftrtliwar .vJUttdt^ to Hio ovid^aaio* A aei; t3tti»X O^taaM 


M JHte iMNff ^^* Ji£lttii ; mfflf iMk 

.A^is iiai^ii{£.<yi3i, 

ftpiaii^ «Ml sgii|«liirttt ^'t ^mmm» 


m» • »fltt4 




Q T 


ef 0x«v«i£M» «f m^ e&m tw M» mm tkaft'^* 

a f:r«te;i&l» Wat 6«;n^i3i3^ 9V«« '>Mle it w^.mi 'btting ttnl&ind^ Imi 
tell mw wm mmpt iaio mm 9^ it* tni^t^' holds %^ tfae hoiatliig 

with t^ «a«« tliAt eMitsiiMNl tut emvsitm «f tlM mimMNm «if»4 
9» tt tJ(*«Ilay tti»^i*»»tttli tSw ^«m 9» hwm «f e foemm* tin* %e«tt 
}.«ijr «iUi Itu 0t«)3r)9e«9rd ctdie »»xt t» tiw 4»«tk* %h«» fioriuii* yiM 
«i s-^til* p«urtiai«X t» tJMi htm%9 «b6 tlu» iwifoi iind4Hrat«4te tilii^ 
tbx} "oloap^lwU.'* ««(t «»0» mff^A «iet«ildl«4 ««»«•« th» ^•i&t 4i«it«|» 
ly 9wmg Vm 9»s%%miXm imX& %im% wm Iwliig ual««tf^» 13bw wrvoaiettt 

troli«4 lay tlw MHiipuil^tioii ^ 3L«ve3e% Is tlM» o«|p* Xa tli» 
^ce900iire mev««Kit« tim '^** MKsvti. oliMg i»id«v tlw ^«Ri« WM 
Immr^a itttt tlM h«3.4« gr^bttd » lia«l»t of «artf ^ci»« then liftsi 
mA mmnt^ ^auA a&fiig thit %<mb t« 1m €»ivtl&<i m th» die«lK. Xt 

smmOI^ Unsik aJbtmt tkt9* grn^ ef •?« rf«ir^ 1N« ntmutes* ^t tte 

miXs there liM no «|Kmlts^»£! t# iha ^p^a^lng ef «!» 
«ccl<lenti mA It i« stoitUy |asi»lWMl 1^ svtp«3.1<^t that t^ jpartef 
i9 |ji^tijrjri«i«3tt t« 8dic»w ti^t it imep»m4 frm^ ^sm *fi3M^fsiimiX'* 
tttrikjte^ tiM 4««»ft««d la mitSk mmfmm&l^ yet $^»mmim tl»>-%i Vm 

f«JU& t9 e!i»t«'bXi»%i, the zM»^i^ne» es^jsir^^* «ytid s^fis'j^^tlwl.jr &hmm 
oa»tPiixitor3r MMSl^i6«R«« <8% tl3* part «f <l909atii«4* 

X^ %«at ir^s aiTicieci tAto f «iii* e«M9«^tai^at« Of i»eir«n 
li^A« •««& m^ieb rf(n a«»pe«$ til«i ^@,t« t^y ^tres"^":^' ^ f*^ Xans* 
9 foi'd't «t^ and 3 f«f^% ^,f*pp imp*.'^i^%i^ liy a sspt^ee rj^ (KS<»88 iMcs 
al^eut a ear 3 f««?t ^i^ elms' utiicd?, mm doolid i«i:£! ftfom <)i«i Bide cT 
tJw? ly^hftt to the <itkmTm The-y ^asetre ii!tsi!#er«#- fttn tiaa Iwt 1 t# 50 
re^^ettiT®!^* Ti^ fir&t »ott«o a^ tl*© f.c<j|j(jtettt traa nfosn ttflMnr 
tft. ing %}j» X^st (pptMnl fven hold wa^nr ? t3%e o^i^T^ter lidiSf 
|wi«5ji«^ tim »ol«Bn»a.rii8ll* ajnul ooj^^- mr«ir It «*s»i36# fcr- tit sit'^is^ did* 
Iii er!i«3r to gs*/ M« iBeeriti|j» f«r ^n^^ttlag?* •* pla^tes tlwj itB.ahiii9 
oppf?tfit0 tht^ s^xt lieid tti iMi «»p^i«d» ««i»' s^i%0^ iylag in !)»34 

I'i^ld 1^ tlti.t lm% wawfoam^ it ^^r^-^ i& wu> c(Hi:ir$« ef & Git$[t«in»qr 
opft]p&ti«B vitl^ irhiii^ 1^ imst h»fe t)6«n fanltii^r* 

At €h@ tian t^ i»«oidoiit luniyea^d lO^X of th^ Itoids 
«r the ti*9KA MivojrtHRit* inoi»diiie autfMr 7* tu»d 1>»ofi oaviiftd 
«8d th^ix' Itfi^totoo mm liUU off* ^ben relf* tiM opoyato^* oiar 
far«» hio 0080 th« bodjr of Oi^bson lying in hold huhAmht 7 bo 
taddttsiir t»topi>od t!io Muemstmnt ondi tsiotioaia^ to tlio idiooinMii 
""ynamt ^iw dtood iMor htAA wmanr :3d« foint^d into maiSMsr ?• to 
nftdtdi .)!^7«K0 tiMi «o»t« A aSu»rt tino h&fttr^ this ::ifii»o lu^ o^olHta 


H^ 3ite«n tibmt puULiag «3» ^w luMuitKssis over hdl4» i» Hit f tost 

oMvaartflMit «»« «a9t||64. HMm i^fnne 34»»t &&w Mimtm Tmt%t9 %3m 
$^ociidc;ni the iatt>07 tmui gnttin^ ir««»<ljr i4ii pudX (m Mm covomi atnl 
mfi siim<ii»j; 071 the «l^%«iaiiA iii4^ «r tli« b««it mHOp llNi <to«k 
«9l»^it0 hold flMiitfetr 7* 

both o«3LlM iby jplsURtiff • ^^^vmiU) i«etlfi®4, ^mA it wi^ «st &i9m 

airpMr gMs on tiMi »14a aeast to t^ doclc «hiHr« thtar asr* wtrkiiifft 
tSmt it im» faslDidldoii to $o «a ^^e^t »id«|^ suod tbmt tlnsx^ wtty« 
»l4Pia» Ml tlw 1»d«i.t« ^lioli itisyo .n^Krwi^ f^^mm tiMr lukt<^» wmw 
bding put (m* siTtKs iiotise to th^-t of f««t« ^Miit«if«r l»4 boon 
d02««(oo4*» 99«Tteft» ojq^rioaoe It «|!^oy»4 Um% ho h«i tio«n 
OB the hoti,% th^t y»»r fron I'^lt. to iiO¥«»BA»«r« tlto msRlii In «hiili 
tlw ft««idi«iiit httj^^onodt umA th»t ho lsitk4 «&($r||ft of tho imtoii tm 
ih ;t ooo^^lon oad «i»» tho oa^ foiraom at tha tint on %«3t l» th«$ 
p^rt of the bo<^t« If he w&» psm^d into th« ttoi^ «duUo o to n tft i mt 
ott tho do<^ eide of tho ipooool in & rOadtioB viioiro ho ni^t ho 
tutvttok l9sr iho pAOoiBiil *o3jMRi»oaitaui*» ^th iiho«io »of<3M»fit« «bio foyjr 
rmtiiro of hio 'Ikitioo isw^o iiigt faialiiiKr» h« not imly w&» vloi»tine 
«k xuio of which ofiid «i«BO sKfo him ttotifl«>t hat Oiannot ho »aifl 
to h«fO hOfl» ^utosroifiing duo tmim tune hio o«n a^#l^t tuol m^n aii» 
^e@tiott<i.hiy {^i^ilty of eostrlbutory nofiiicpMO* 

^oif ia msy (ihs^m ^ msXigmif^ ouataiaod ^ tho 
pre$f • ¥heif« mue bo OTi4«ii«o to oia^toiB ths oh^^v^e «i asogXii^at 
o«eisst]piioti«B« or BoftXi0s»r}«o in f^lure to v&m Oihoon oT the 
i^isrotiiioh of tho '*oioHi»OholLl'*« Tho crono mA "oioa^ohoU." o«uJUI 
ho ooott frmk oToisy »«rt of th» oooh, sxi& eortft^uay A®foa4«a* 
11^ imdoy 80 l^tea ^ty to vteym oihsoa e^ on obvionoTlBSIiait 
to tho wfk wilit t^lia* ho onot h«»o hooMi ««ifOo.;iiito4* mA tlwat 


U«9 to m^m^^ t% t^pmtttf too* \^.% m» e^?mpm%m omjiU mt 

•tt the d9<sJc oid« &t tlM %»Att «li«Td ua<p«esti<mi^b^ lie hJsA Kft 
twAiiMtMi io l«« «»)& «ibGi3r« let Umi m^^3»m»m «f £UL& ititjr te 
mmad not W tt»a^e^4 t« Iw* flw 93r»of ^An&& laaigif f ioi&st %e 3o* 

to iiio« lli^t tSmmt wek& m mmt^ ^&eU6«a. «»aj»t]m-irti«a «tf Mw 
wtMihtiw »ir setltieS ftl* ^pAj'^iy^ it* 

l>«f«al«»t offdrdd ae '^vidkeuM «ad &t «IN» e«»oJiu»l<»3 
chT yitt «iriil«iMNi msOmA f«r «tt i]U»txust<N& v<nr4.l6%t '^ii«lt ife Utink 
ttlimld iuim 1M»6» iiv«ii» At anar nut* tto TeiJNtitft' ia «4$»iii»t Vm 
mmki9is% w«i^t ^ i3m evt^Msum^ » qp«»»tiQii ^eo^sitaj^Lijr pr&umtnA 
y^ %h£s r^SSima t« Sfftmt iDiH ii»ti«»* 

A«««r4iaisX^ tiid 4udp»nt isW Ims r«»v%ir«»<t with a £ixid* 
isatt of f«et* 

wmmmm tsm fibb^^ici ^ fact. 



^xs^w& ^ wwit 

m find tibflfrt sm*«XX&»%§ iitmm^tBin ^%»&l -ammst* 
«ad th&i the ^^rnktsksmA^ Wmmoi Ui.'^mgg wm @»lli^ df &«H^il>iit9qr 


337 - 25597 
ARTHUR 1)« Lomy, 




2191.^- 651 

^iDiHG justice; BARKBS 


Plaintiff Lord brought suit a^^ainst appellant and 
Xdwin Saith Hodgman on the conmen oounte, an account stated, 
and a special count for work and serrices in and about the 
selling for the Old Ben Coal Company its bond issue of |750,000« 
JUdgnent was rendered against them on a finding by the court* 

The evidence shews that defendant Hodgoan was in the 
eoploy of co-defendant Stemwood, Taylor & Oojopany, of Chicago, 
a dealer in investaent securities, and that in such of its 
transactions as ho took part he received a certain perce^^ntsge 
of the profits, but had no general authority to act for it, 
each transaction standing *en its own bottom** with reference 
to terms and his authority therein. It appears that he was 
authorised to continue negotiations, already begun by tho Ties 
president of the coiapany, to effect a sale of said bonds to a 
Chicago firm. But he abandoned them, going to How York city 
for some purpose. ^Ihile there he receirod a letter from the 
coiopany stating that the Chicago firm had declined to purchase 
and adding "you are therefore to offer this proposition wbererer 
you see fit.* This was the only express authority given to him 
in the Toatter beyond his specific authority to negotiate with 
the Cloicago firm, and the record discloses nothing in their 
relations or conduct, before or afterwfixds, from which any 
implication as to its extension or enlargement wcxild arise* 

♦ '• 0,' sj^l \:K«qja©0 XaoO nji'l bZO erU toi ^^rUi. 

;ix aw,!,- turn: 1<ib :^f\At ewor? .) *jD«yI*ivy i»rJ7 

■ioX^«'i' ^lboowH«*^> «.'i >n '■:.> -00 io -^coXqpgpf 

^rfiin^o'soq sU&ifa © Aav. /I J-jinci ^09^ or£ .is caDiJoi>att«'xi 

.'0-'.j»'x»1;£>' .TfiO 3ii no** st«i.*'''ti>'J ' rio£i'0.-;en»ic^ £fae« 

^ile in New York he met appellee > Lord, also a broker, 
and acquainted him with the proposition. On his starting to 
Philadelphia to present it there Lord suggested that he call 
on the firm of Cassatt & Coo^any of that city. Hodgman presented 
the matter to that firm and it subsequently closed a deal for 
the bonds, allowing Stanwood, Taylor S: Company one per cent 
commission on their par yalue* IjOibs time after the deal was con- 
summated Lord presented a claim to the latter coiqpany for a 
conimission or coiapensation for his services, which were entirely 
limited to suggesting Cassatt & Coapany as a customer for the 
bonds, he doing nothing further to promote the sale, stanwood, 
Taylor & Coagpany had no direct dealing with Lord and gave no 
special authority to Hodgman to esisploy his services in the matter. 

Vihile Lord and Hodgman differed somewhat with respect 
to what took place between them, on which Lord bases his claim 
to an agreement for compensation, yet what was said or done between 
them is immaterial so long as Hodgman was not authorized by 
appellant to engage the services of a sub-agent. /Whatever may be 
Hodgman* s liability, if any, it is not a joint one with the company* 
It is almost too plain for argument that under such circumstances 
the limited authority to "offer the proposition* wherever Hodgman 
"saw fit", did not confer upon him authority to en^loy a sub-agent 
for that purpose, ( Poggett v. Green « 254 111* 134; Bondwell v. 
Howes . 2 H, Y, Supp, 717*) 

Equally untenable are the contentions of appellee that 
the conpany ratified the arrangement between Lord and Hodgman, 
and that a retention of the benefits of the transaction renders it 
liable. Stanwood, Taylor & Company cannot be held, without some 
subsequent affirmative action on their part, to have ratified that 
of which they had no knowledge until after the consummation of the 

-iOi L»f:- 


« .f>00wJ'i < tiu 

» «?; ii fit) ftoicijiiiaiaon 

■■■: sai^'-P-*"' '^^O^'itfe Oil ■' 

. • - .. ft? II «<I«?JS 

•;»v.-. . . . .>H 




deal* While Hodgman su'bsequent thereto took up with the coopany 
the matter of Lord's clfi^ia it nerer e^ressly or impliedly re- 
cognized the same or his authority to enter into it, and haying 
■ade no contract with Lord it was not bound by its silence and 
disregard of his claiai. Bat, as said in Carroll v. Tucker . 21 
H, Y, Supp, 952, quoting from 1 i«, & Sng. F^o. of Law, 39f>i 
"Where the sub-agent has been ezoployed without authority, and his 
acts are afterward ratified, he can recover no ooagkensation trcm 
the principal but oast look to the agent •** 

The coBS>any*8 deal with Cassatt <% Company being utterly 
dtiitinot and separate from any unauthorized arrangement Hodgmon 
may have made with Lord, the dootrine of liability froa retention 
of benefits of the transaction has no applic;ition here* 

Nor can the latter recover on the theory that he was 
the procuring cause of the sale. His mere suggestion of Cassatt 
& CoaE(pany as a probable purchaser did not entitle him to a 
cosanission ( Rees v. spruanee « 45 111* 308, 311) and cannot be 
deemed the efficient, procuring cause of the sale. 

It therefore follows that there being no liability 
on the part of ^tanwood, Taylor & Coj^any, the judgsaent aust be 
reversed, and^ as the ease w- s tried without a Jury, a Judg- 

ment entered here with a finding of facts different from those 
Ic^liedly found by the court below* 

There it no evidence on which to base a claim under 
the common counts or a stated accomAt. 

Gridley and Matchett, JJ**, concur* 






337 - 25597 

FXKDZ»a OF 7A(^S« 

W« find as ultiaate facts that there was no o<m- 
tract, express or lulled, betirten appellant, Btanwood, Taylor 
ft CojEipany, and appellee, <\rthur o. Lord, and no contract 
"between the latter and co-defendant Bdwin Smith Hodgoan, to 
which said appellant was a party, and no ratification by the 
latter of any contract between said Lord and said Hedgaan, 
and nc stated account between said Lord and said Stanwood, 
Taylor & Cnqpany, and that said Hodgman had no suthority from 
said vStanwood, Taylor & Cosqpany to enter into a contract with 
said Lord for the latter *s serrices in and abc^ut the sale of 
the bonds in question, and that said Lord was not the 
efficient or procuring cause of said sale* 

an JMsft s&:. 

VQi-d- - ?:,<:; 

aii^lv 9a i)Hl^ i^"' 

v«ii i»xjMr lia 


832 - £5489. // 

Dr. JOerPH B. D«L«, 



219 I*A* 651 

m. JUSTICE GHIDLET dellvertd th« opinion ©f U« o^urt! 

On Jf'jiuftry 6, 19X9, plaintiff, a phyaioleai, »p«olftlUing la 
•b8t»trlo» and gynooology, brought suit la the Municipal Court of 
Chicago agalnPt d«f«iid«nt to rooovtr for th« r« «onabl« ralut of 
•idloal e«rvlo«8 r«nd«r«d to defendant's aarrlod daught«r, Mrr». Pi,ul 
>umfia, during tht Bwrnthi of S«pt««b«r m<X Ootob«r, 1917, at 
4«feBa«it'» r«quo»t. Th« obuet w»*» ht'srd bofore th« oourt without 
ft jury. »o efl4«noe w»9 introduced by d«f«nd^.Bt. After htaring 
plaintiff* tvldtnoo tht court, od d«f«nd«nt'« Botloii, found th* 
Ittuee ag&ln«t plaintiff md •nt#r«d judgsont ag&ln«t hi» for oo»t«, 
from which judg^ont ho apposlod. 

from tho t«»tlmony of tho plaintiff and thr«« othor '^Itnoteon 
Oftllod in hie boh&lf tho following faot© in 8ub»t«not apposr: In 
8«pto«bor, 1817, Mr. P^ul Pumollaallcd Pr. irthur loowy, a phy»iol«n 
residing in Oftk Park, Chicago, to attend hit wlfo, who «ao lit aa 
avanood eta|t of prognanoy, WhlU Dr. Lo««y ««• attondlng h«r in the 
»*ct Suburbtm Hotpltai In 0»k P»rlr, sh« dovolopad kidney trouble and 
>•» condition beoaaro eerlouc. About thla tint Dr. Uewy had a 
ocaTereatlon at night over the telephone with hit patlwit'a »other, 
*M defendMftt. Re detailed hie patient's eerloue condition and what 
jPWbubly would h&YC to be done, and eald th»t he deal red to call another 
|P^yclolaa, Dr. DeUe, If hi a eervloee could be prooured. To thle 
•tateaent the defendant replied In aubetance: "All right; go aheii; 
^«rc no expenee; get the beet phyetoian you poealbly can." On the 
'•llowlng day at the hoeplt?! Dr. Loewy h*d another ©onverestlon with 
^ defendant, at which he again epoke of the aerloue condition of hie 
PMlcat and the probable outeoac of the oaee. The dtr^adant eald "thKfc 

■y^ tiA^^ 



.mtmtt— ^M»91^ 


•he and ^'' Hy«aa would have to stand back of the young people la thle 
instance.- On the .a.e day Dr. DeLee, residing at 6038 Illie Arenue 
in the eouth part of Chicago, and harlng been .u«moned by Dr. loewy, 
oalled at the hospital and had a oonver.ation with defendant, during 
Which the latter said: -Doctor, I want you to leave no etone unturned; 
I want you to leare nothUg undone to safeguard ay daughter.- Plaintiff 
thereupon went up to Mrs. Pumell's roo« and exa«lned her. After the 
exaaination plaintiff had another conversation in the corridor with 
defendant, at which Dr. Loewy and Mr. Pumell were creeent. Plaintiff 
detailed to defendant the very critical condition of Mre. Purnell, and 
-uggeeted that she be removed to the Chicago Lying In Hospital, on the 
eouth side of Chicago, in order that plaintiff might give her «ore 
attention than he could if she remained In the lest Suburban Hospital, 
Which was far removed from plaintlff»e circle of work. To this 
auggeetion defendant assented and further said: -I don't want you to 
leave anything undone that will preserve my daughter.- Mrs. Pumell 
was removed to the hoepltal mentioned, and on her entry defendant, 
although there were other rooms to be had, selected the most expensive 
room, and again told plaintiff that he ehould -leave nothing undone - 
and should give her dau^ter the -best of all possible medlolnea.- 
Plaintiffe testimony further disclosed that he there attended and 
treated Urn, Pumell many times, and that, t hou^ the case presented 
■any complications, he was suo.eesful in hie efforts and that the 
IWes of both mother and baby were saved. There was also testimony 
to ths effect that the usual and customary fee at the time for such 
8peoiali9t«e services ae were rendered by plaintiff was at least «1000, 
aad that plaintiff had submitted a bill for §750, which remained unpaid. 

In 31 Ruling Case Law, p. 412, sec. 55, It le said: -The 
general rule, that where a person requests of another the performance 
•ervices the law implies a promise to pay the reasonable value of 

• services performed, has no applictlon in the case of a physician 
^•ndering professional servlcee to a third pereon. If the relation to 

• patient of the person who requests the services is not such as 

t- ■:: 


«i ••Oj^y 

;4 m^ *•.;• .?a«i^«»< 

iarportB th« legal obligation to provld© th«a. The authorltlee 
gener&Uy support the broad proposition that a atere request hy one person 
to a phyeiolaa to render eervloee to another to whoa the person aaklng 
the request Is under no ohlig^tion to furnish aedlcal oare raises no 
implioatioa ot a promise to pay for the servioee. x x Aooordlngly, 
it has been held that a physician may not recover from a parent for 
eervices rendered to an adult daughter at the request of the parent." 
Theee principle » are euetained by the following oaeee: Boyd ▼. 3apriin<f^on . 
4 Watts (Pa.) 347; Crane v. Baudcuine . 6S I?. Y. 356; MoGulre v. Hughes . 
807 N. Y. 516. It Is further said In the text book mentioned (p. 413): 
"However, aaedloal service requested by one person in behalf of another 
and furnished to that other often gives rise to a oontraot Implied In 
fact between the phyelolan and the per eon requesting the service, x x 
For example, although a promise to pay a physician for his servloea le 
not iBplled from the mere f jct that a father oalle him to attend hie 
»lok eon, who Is a man of mature age, yet, if the olroumetanoee or 
aonditlons s-re euoh at to lead the phyoiolan to believe that the father 
Is undertaking to pay for the eervleee to be rendered and to oharge the 
father with knowledge thereof, he is liable under an Implied oontraot." 
(Citing, Morrall v. Lawrence. 303 Mo. 363). In the Worrell oaee, the 
oourt eaye (p. 373): •»« do not go with the counsel to the extent of 
holding that a father calling a phyeiolan to attend hie adult son cau 
t>« rendered liable only on an exprese oontraot, because we hold that 
the olroumetanoee or condltione may be such ae to lead the phyelciaa 
to believe, and to oharge the father with knowleage that the physician 
<ioe8 believe, thst the father Is undertaking to pay for the eervloee 
to be rendered. Whilst the calling of a physician to the bed slAe of 
^ elok msn has In the nature of the case Its own element e of exception 
to the general rule, yet it Is not put so far In a ttlase by iteelf ae 
to exempt it entirely from the category of Implied oontraote. Whether 
• faotc of a eaee are euoh ae to present a question of whether or not 



Mi ef l«»i ir in ill* f^vot* rtli«d on, i«tc«a •>• trtt*« t^«f« 1« nothlnf 
!• jufftlfy %lk« laf«y*nof tb« court »11X to d«0ld« &• n suttAr of Inw, 
lit if tk«]r ar« tuoh a» th t If er*dlt«4 \h% icf* r«Ba« alji^t or algH 
tot X«gitlMp.t«l]r bM dr»»a^t !• » (|u««tie{> of f$dt.* In Salth v. 
|tt tcai . 14 Tt* 338j» a pttyoiol^ tottf^t to moovor of «> orothor of m 
lii«.^at )>«r»o& for Medio a1 «tt«fi4^noo »n4 norvloo)^ r«n4«rod th« Isttov 
&t tho ro^oct of auob brotlioY. Tit* oourt oey* (p. 397): "It ^.iX^p%>Mtt 
%k*X ftll iho MTYiooOf for ohiok iho plaintiff brlAgo thlt motion, woro 
ptrforaod for tbo brotbior of tho d«ffiad;^Bt;, «)iO^ tliou|)i iao«a«, «»• 
liablo tfaorofor, Tho proomt dofoadisat «aa oteilf bo »«do llablo <m «a 
orifla^l «ttdtrt<^kiBg. Tbo torvlooo «or« not l»«aofJlol»l to Mm, ead ka 
!»• undor no l«gml obllgAtlen to pay for ih««i, tmloto «^<m »a oxprooa 
aadart king, or Wfkff ii im M XilEll \qlfry?<^ J[£2& llUL f4lfn?f JlMl 
it va« ik» intoatloa of fe>«tb p^rtioe tbitt tbo pl^ietiff obould porfora 
tha a«rviQ«i( aad tba doftadtmt ahouXd p>ty hla tllorofor.* In I ^rio|i v. 
Jaookaea. 113 HI. Ap|>. 5|t9, J^oo&ooa, ^ phyalol^ ^d aurgaon, auad 
fiorioa for profoaaiofval oorvioea raadorod in tbo parfora^oo of ■%» 
oMratioa for tko roaov<^l of & twaor froa tl»« «%>doa«a of tba wlf* of 
Darioa*« aoo. In tlM trial aowrt, » jury found tba laaaaa io f^nvor of 
XU plaintiff aad ho bad jadcaoat for #400. TIM Aproll^ta Court for 
tka Saoond Oiatriat, bowovar, u»d.^r tbo p^rtlouUr f^otd, ravoraad tlto 
)«d0aant m^ raa%nd*d tbo o ua*. Tho oourt oaya (p. 56t> It^lioa oura) 
*Tba ralstioa of ^tppalldnt to Wf, Dorioa mae aaob tb'^t aoftathiaa a^oro 
^^ A.1III. roaaoat to %ppollo« to roador tba Ptrvioaa ««» nao«aft»r7 la 
or4ar to bind *ipall^t. R* iraa aadar n l*g*l obUg'itioa to provld* 
*» pay for Madl««l ^ttaadttaoa to »<*. Dorioa, «ad i» bor baab»Bd«a 
*baaaoa hla ooaaoat to tbo parfora«noo of tba ftarvloaft, or a^ea ^ raitt«*t 
tbarafor, wril; «a aaooai^ttnitd by s proaiaa to psy for tbaa, upon tb* 
'•itb of wblob tb« otrYioaa wt^ rondarod !iad but for wfelab tboy would 

*•* kai^ Ifoa raadarad, aould not atthoriaa » raoovory. x a Mo partioulsir 


form or —i of vord» i» required In »uoh e&««s, but it Bunt %ppe»r fhfut 
A p&rty oooupyl&g tuok r«ltitlon» ^9 !^p:« ll«nt ooompltd toward Kre. Dorlon, 
rtqueeting or ao<iul4KCi»g in th« »«rvio««i of a phy«lolan, gUg ox 4IA 
tba^ whiqh ra gpnably Inaiquttd ^ int»ntlon l£. £sx Xa£ th«gi . ^a 
jfhat i ^t y.ts jc unAferttood b y the yby9loi.aP| find for that ye^j&cn tb c ^ 
•trvlogc woro rgnOgred. • 

ItedOT tlM ffrottf of tiM pr«0«nt o<!ii9«j ais dlscloiied truoi th« 
tetilaoRy of pl^lctiff '• witno«t(»», a«id in th« llgjitt of tho aboto 
•uthoritio*, wo gro 0/ th« opinion th<it th« trial oourt «-»• not wij^rrsntod, 
at t)M olooo of plaintiff's o«c«. In finding th« lt«u«»« ag inot 
pl^iintiff, and orrtd In entorlng a judgnont ag9lnot hln. 1# think 
tbat plaintiff iii&do out « good pri«a f&oio 09«<« of liability ozi tho 
part of Xre. Hy«an for th« rt$oo&abl« Taluo of plaintiff* e s«rvio«« 
roaderod to h«r d«a^t«r, who was ti^rrlfd »iid Htring with hor huab Bd« 
Kr. Pun^oll. fhilo plaintiff** «vldono« dooo not dltolooo th^t lfr«. 
Hyaao oiacroBfely proaltod to pay plaintiff for tho «»rTlo«t to b« rondarad 
\tf hia, «a tbirik th t fron tho avidono* of what Vra. ?ya>m a&id ^md did 
•ad othar avidaaoe, an «alA in Bwlth v. fatten, aucra. "it aay ba fslrly 
Ufarrtd x x th&t it ^^b tha Intantlon of both p^rtlaa th-^^t tha pl'>intlff 
ahould ji^rfora tho earvioes md tha dofaadaat abould pay hla thorofor. " 

Tha judgiatat of tha Muniolp^l Oourt la raworaod ^d tha 
Oattaa ia raa^mdad. 


BAWES, p. J., and lOTCHITT. J., concur . 



241 * ^5496 

OEORQI UEMDli'Ht ad«iPi»trftor 
of the £At?.t« ^t r«t« tferidith, 

Aprjftlattt, ) APPEAL PBOtf 


cracAOO rulvats c^asy, / ) oook oootty. 

ApptUee. j 219 I -Ac 6 51 

MR. JUSTICE GPIDLET <ltllv«r«d the opinion of th« oourt. 

In an motion brought by plaintiff^ a» -sdalnliitriatOT, agalntt 
d«fiind^nt to rtoover daMiftd for tb* alleged wrongful destb of Kate 
Kerlalth, the jury returned i^ verdlot finding the defendant not 
guilty. JudgMnt in inrot of tbe defend^int followed 'ind pl^ilntlff 

Tbe aooldent bappened between 7 and 8 o'clook on the evening 
of June 3«, 1&17. Tbe deoeseed was struoir by an eleotrlo etr««t o^r, 
owned and operated by defendant, on tfllwstukee revenue ne^r tbe 
Inter^veotlon of Tfilwan avenue In tbe olty of Chlosgo. Plaintiff 
charged In eeparente oount? of bl« deolsration: (1) general negligence 
in tbe oper^'tlon of tbe o%r, (3) negligently running It at a high 
and dungeroue rste of speed, and (3) negligently falling to ring a 
bell. The ualn defenc^e w<tt that the deae«eed wae guilty of euoh 
contributory negligence ae barred s recovery. 

Mllwaulfee avenue rune in a northwesterly t^nd eoutbeaeterly 
direction. Defendant operated iti* street c>re thereon on double 
tracks - the o?.»b iMJvlng ©outhea«terly being run on tbe right bsuad 
track. Tsl»an avenue, a north «nd eouth etreet, enters UllWHuHee 
avenue fro* tbe north, but doee not extend eouth therefrom. Attrlll 
etreet entere Milwaukee avenue fron the aouthweet, but does not 
extend northeaet therefrom. Frsnoee Place, s north and south etreet, 
•nter* Mllwi^ukee avenue from the eouth, but does not extend north 
therefro*; It le the next etreet <»outbee«t of Attrlll etreet entering 
Milwaukee avenue. Attrlll etreet lee ebort dletsnoe northweet 
of tbe west line of Talaen » venue extended aaroee Milwaukee avenue. 


and rrano«« Plan* is a longtr <titt8nd« 90uth«aflt of tb« SAtt lin« 
of TalBftC f»T«nue llk«wi«f •xtftnaed. 

Th« dtoese^d etart«d fro» the north«a»t oorner of iin««iuk«« 
and Tal««n avenu* tc oro©*? Vilw^uV^c av«nu«. Sh« went *el3wit-wlee» 
towarde Franoee Placj©, b«t not on a otOM-w%lk. When ehe reAobed 
the last rsll of the ?»eoond traok «h« v^« struok by ^ ttreet onr 
•oving in s eoutheaieterly direotlon and reoelved Injuriee resulting 
in her deeth. There wae eTidenoe tendlag to <ihow that before 

. attempting to croee the ««oond treok ehe did not look to e e If 
& or «&» approaching frow the northwest; th^t hdd ehe looked she 
oouiu have eeen Itj th*t before ehe reached the eeoond tr*ok the 
motorsan rang hie bell and applied hie brake e; but th«t deceaeed 
iiave no heed end oontinued to advance iwroedifttely in front of the 
on-ocalDg oar. 

Couneel for plslntiff urgee s^e grounde for s revereal of the 
JudgKsnt: (1) The giving of inetruotion No. 3, offered by defendant, 
and (a) allowing to rewin in evldenoe the anewer of the «otor«aa 
of the or to j queetion whloh oleRtly called for hie aare 

ft 8ub«itcntiplly the e&ne inetruotion hae been approved by 

fevle^lng oourte of thla 8tftte. The po'nt «ade le thjt it ie 
framed on the hypotheei* thst deoesead »&w the 03i.r approaching, while 
the evlaenoe dleoloeee that ehe evidently did not, tven granting 
the point It does not follow th?.t the Judgment ehould therefore 
he revereed. After e careful *3Ja«iB*tion of the entire record w* 
think thut the jury could not reaeonobly h»ive rendered « verdict 
other than they did beoauee of the evident contributory negllgenoe 
•f the deoeaeed; thnt upon another trl«l the verdict ntuat 
InevltRtly be the eanc; and that aubetantl'?! juetlce hae been don*. 
Qnder such olrcu«»t.ince* » judgaent will not be revereed b»o%uee of 
POeeible error in an inetruotion, or beo«uee of error in the admieelon 


Of improptr teetl&ony whloh ovuid not hav« lnflu«n<?«d the rcrdlot. 
(Grg«nup v. gtok«r , 5 0U«. ZQ2, SlBi Hewitt v. Jofie», 72 m. 31S, 331; 
rem v.^hlofego City By. Co., 113 111. I.'p^, 381, 393; O^hewann v. 
City of Gh loago, S63 111. d9S, S98). 
The JudgawBt le affiroed. 


BARHES, P. J., and MATOHfTT, J., oonour. 

iiMiai A* 

€trt «r iti^iK 

» sX»l 



^. G <i^ J- 

flf i^«ii^ <MUIist» it* Mfiir* its «itr ^%)^'tk m$A %%» »i« ^^linrMm* 

eittiMi id IHI <»93Ll«et«<S •6i*t&i» uaao^tft iiwtttSJUMHil* «f e^itittX 

eod l«Ti«d» {!u'aiMtt««d an* vmfiwwmd la -'ip«ei«4 ''8fl«»«mii% »•• 89 
af the Villain («•» cii^} «f ^i%i^ ^^««», is lilii mmm^ eouurt fff 
Q»«ia( eciuBty» mA fwtVhMt mwiii'iiiniiflie' ilMK wift ««<li «r t?>tn te 

MMttt Of %am fmm tn.% Vim maA ism* m kimm «f W-a:5,at, 1mI«b 
«)M«»tliird «r mmiktA. mtm «f Mma^t «i^^^ liitei*«»% UMf«(m» iefl«|i, 
a > t»aii ««t MwfitmtA «9«lMi% teftA ViU«@» (Mm citjp) |a aaiA 

C)|t^ in tl»W» fMWttia ii!k3tii3l2«Mai|»« 

«l» y^UUen tm tkua «r|t «ns fil«4 ill IHHi [> i»r Si« 
l«ia« t% U lamiflm mutgt^ in «»li«tj»n«t Utet f«tiUeii» is • 

9A9W4 f«i %vA%»gmm far tha (pwliag* wtvcwlMm^ ata^t af pariiaiM 
«r Itata a%raa% ana c^ttrUaiiA. Vina vmA i^^aath ihraayaat aYamaa, 
la «4a VUXAfiat tli^^t tlw avdlnanM 9i«vi4a4 tinki tlia iffproTMaant 
iHotOA %a iKMla* a«l tlai adi>t ^AA tmr^ V iHP»«iaA aanasaannt* la 


.^rU«l« 9 of ^M CItUft (i»l ViUi^s '%et «St Ifif8« ewl la M^^timm 
vitlt alt &«% MttlMrisiac tlM ctlvl'^toB ttf »i««ifiA mmntmsnttt inU 
tiiBtv ilineifita imMI fl»tkMP|«|»K the l^sueiMe «r Imiuttt ta «aiUcl^it 

4|vidifl4 I3mi tkmmwmmwAt into »«>vmi lfi«tHil»®nt», th« ftr«i to %• 
pa^}A.9 frmL em& vftrnv Vam ^0timmMim •€ tlw «i0t3««««eiit, tg^nA Urn 

b«>iiti<ai Att yti^ fimnitar «^:>uri <»f C(»<-.^k emmtf t9r the i«iry tf « 

etat «f a«4d ia|^ay»i0&nt; tluj^t tho««fift«r rndfat iNP«««^Afii« «Nir« luiA 
tlizit an mn^mnmmm^ roll v&® f ilL«di thmvim «^. th* »ii«««siiBftitt e«»» 
tir&s&a ^ tt ^Ocnnit «at«x>«(i J^^sy % I3t4| thst «n :\99%mtmr ?« 
1094, th«> viUiae* rift«»«d 9» isrAimmm ttm «» t^mm «f tt^fodsv to 
HRiielp»t« tte eolleotton af ite «»ew»d MMt «i««««ASsig iiwt mlla w n i t t 
itr ttalA «8«»»%iia«tt-« t« tiM aamuttt «f |8»90& agnlaat ca«h •f tlw sisc 
4l«f«fY*A tn«ifaiB»iit«» «Md bods t* 1i«tMP lnt«v*ii% ikt 6 ^§tut tmnt 

l'%iflM« Oftta i a t ifr y HO, X»&4, iN^ing WM ttMN 90 <y^ arif^Hr th« mUMI 
^iMHkaaMefit& flilt «r nhiiSi mO^ b«nd» imp» pnyviMA iWtfMi %• dMV 
[i»ti«tt«%l y^^t tMilA wnUmbm 9iwvide4 tHai arid bond* aJkouU not 

Itt tita iMggva^Kl* tiM flMOUMl <^ the d^sfanwd l»st()XiaK»ftt«» 
idMtad %a divided itit« «^» Meay s«riaa e^a tlMM «««« d«i#finred ia» 
•i«U»e«%tt, and atkoolLd 1mm tmssmtm nittMAiid to v«9>««*»t Vm 
tBimfe^ tft aeeiiM «bHsr»«i» toid tiu^t «l»a vui»ea aA#it t%«m<m 9k9 
[lints at ita vptUn at the tlMi al* «i^ tmmtl i/mfmaA «t laiarvat, 

» di«ni* iioUae iMliig «iT«ii In m d«tt|«nai«d tmnmP^^l ^^^ 
[l|r aalA — 8#aiiniat tlm nSLlaga «f i^aj« fU4«a ma naaae «<! («itli 

amunia «r Mttty not nwr in cfuautlon) m the em ^^ad 7th 
IstlaAlMmtss, f&r lata "A* and '♦C*', «h» sum tf i&34*85, i«d far 


WilU ^mmtitn Hm ai» of t'39lO»^» «p tan f%al mm ist :|42H»»S9 
«ai 9MAI ttffcid iit0ieair^«^t$ Umt »» n^^^rtHP^^tiofi fwr t2w i^ammt 

«r ssIA mam witli iji%«xf«i»t li»^ <vf^ 1mm muM lor (M^iid I^UUUet, mt 
l^ar lift «n»cs«e<^«r« ffeiqi city «r ^arlc Bi<ifii>« and Uu.i% •tAiA mam 9^ 
mmy with int«iirei«i ««?« utiJiI 4ltt« «iii ttf^iiid tiy »0^ <'i^ titoi 
l>eUU9a»r I* Miv 1du» :U«^ i«»U«r mA «ia»r i»f «ix imwIb f «r Hot 
e^M!^, mA «f ti»» lNMi(«« f «r W^m «««% all dg^<l ^^9l«HiMnP 80« ISH 
all liHMHid Igr miM V]|U«0»t 4r««ii« Ia1«9«i9i^ ett 9«r ««nt i»«r mmm» 
mA ibU iini«l<l| (fhi nwrtMP mA «Mri»it of «««ii iMmd. ^tm teaftMll* 
ttE^t 9itt 0f #tl«li it l» pnand^ui, utaftt Ui$9mnsi%t If iinr» li£ui %••» 
WAAffmi tim. mKumt vt iftt«t««t <bi« en 0«M!iJbt «»« «@t-f«rtili In d««* 
i«dl}s thi!^»% l^Uti«t8»r Iji «4se tiMr Ha^ikS, iM&Air mA mmm of a 
<8«riai» vmxmmX^ lo. i^« of lti»taXliBQiiit So* 0« leaved Iqr 8«4iA ITIllaflt 
tmA da«»d -.^iiiwiftev ;S4« 1894, twt |S!t3«19 %9 IGUitt«iE ii« Mtls^ «r «r<Miv« 

Ddth lHt«ro«t ;%% 6 jM^y omt por iftoam tbttvean frtm .3^Xy l« xe9$; 
«IA ^hMi% msM TUJU^gs C»9» lt>3f) hum fwiXttA «^ aegleet«4 to «93a«<it 

l«ft«d mA nMommmA nfffn^Okn^ prlTntv ^rc^jjArt^ &e ^&id apisQial. «««•»»» 
P MMi 9V«o«*4lBft« »atf t2i£tt isnid sum ie titiXS. a»« §mA vsam^^ ^ «^^i<l 
'-11^, jtnd titbit 1^ ree&xin thiireaf ytfUiiiMKtr IstcMi ast r4i<i«iTft4 tlMl 
•anwrtut <kM} hta «pan si<iA htmSm wmA nwrrnttt* 

Or SmuLorf 6« ifid, aA.X of 1^ AfifwAmOm mmmA in Vm 
p«Ut&oii fiXM « ceMrall dniMyrnr tli»f«t»« >'^l»a»^«iiUy Urn oatrt, 
■fUr «V!0ttM[it «f •««itt«tt3t» ewr»a«4 th* ^emirrex'* mA ^m F«%fiiaf7 
86» 1^>1&« mi$A A^^mtAeatUi ti^knti 0m timi— r* 

IR 10m first 9Mrc«iN9Wh 9f tim mmmf %}m 4itfeiii«itts 
ftdMt llMit ttw «vdijMn«t f 0r tlse iamrftmm&t wm v»^A lor tlHi 
Vtu«||t m y«lHPtt xy ^o, liM»4. tImi mAimmm U mt out in fuix» 
MM it ii^i««» t]h»t tlM «U«i»U«iie «f ilHi iK^Utiim roii live «ber«» 
t* &r« 0u'Nit/inU<illy o»irr^et» 

'>^y --fll^r.v^ ^IZ u 


t^aiS p.iS592!W(»% il!»a!ff«af %v0fii iitft^ ^m\ m?M %y 3»td -'tl^Uise m -^t^, Intt 
l?wy 'i^Hsjr tiafc:^* s^t|!l tjii'^^snflwsit* aa^ *^ :i««l iwii5?«.lt4* 

S«i tl^ 6W pisSMI^^ ^M» ^'«ft»«lilltil «!dNl% l^et tM^r l^W 
ii»% ^ta<9e|ii4 «yiM ;fit^4ait» ftf aHii&»g wwj i % » ft||»lii»t ^I'fiMNi j^^L'^^rtir 

Ci%3r it i'^ n9% %i»^m^ «9»ii aaiy «ir Haw <i<sf«iiA»ii%«» 

Hi tiw f ^ '^mKi^^^s^ t^ d^jf^ioasi^ sf^r t!^t m^ writ 

^9%tti9mw H&e tai^B ,<r»ili^ ^ l>%<3i*i^ la not ^Vi^i-^QUtlii-S M« 


Xft tlw 9«ii jjg' i l g niHl Wm ^itHmAtm* aU««k, cms a fwsMM 
vliir «l» writ idMiilLd mt iMmm, ^^t llb» wdlfumtt tmm nit Mytoify 
tlMt Milium, fltifidPttotev* lo«c4iiijr ««& di»«(ap|yi^Uiii tf tlw pp<»(i««« 

tjBo oraiMMM l9 V9t<tt «M<t ^ r««f»«i tam9m9t tht eeunlgr «i»tft 

dOtpiirvil iM 4itHMi«%lttii itt tti« Mi^ln»i;;U«gi 9»MM»«<liilg»| MiA IHat 

Tol^ £i«a aaMJEPftiraealil** 

SB tl» lotb iMTisrapli Hie ^«^&tD&tm^ In «ulictflifn«e «lii«i, 
a* ft fitrtaiiftir v« .«c«i fii|p Il» wirik% t/bmAA t»% Imam^ Iteii >«tiil««Mr 
on ^(Uly X3t IM9, f jU«<l •^««tA«iiis In ftalA CMstmlgr emm^^ mtm 
ia>iai0<iiton of ti«o emmiy «3«u«N3t«r f»r |4i4pMi^ «iMi mf^m 00 sain 
for t]»e a@iiii(ii'@»t &tii inHMnUsf^Mi of ilw mmmmml^ Ui>Hm^ agetiost 
wrtftlM vs'^^^Hr of soAd 9»tiU«iit»; tiiy^t MikiiA ^i^mt^^m (]Mitttifl«Mr| 

Mt Up f iiw ot^«<rtioiM etifiM^ktiiK Hkm velid&tir «f lb* i«^j:;4l«^^itlMi 


\$MiUmm iMlas ttt r«ar«bt te f^^%X), «ml fausr dtfcMar #l!i|«6a«Mi attMlP* 
' ftftS th« vuli^tr «r ti» Ari^iR^ €!<!iiriVBi^it&l»i 9V»«ie<lia8« Ml ttft 
i|wi»pMiit <nt«v«4 tb»y*lii {•miA 0i4%«Umm til«9 !Ml«« Mi tm^ im 
ftoU)t Hukt «f mM iMit MiitliMi4 ili^»«ti«Mi Hii fi^ •l)iJ««tlMi 
WMi thai *|ii Hw pKftiW«i<Hftgi for lli» eoitf'infifttiftB «f tmH nm^UA 
tmu9vmu% tim erdisMMMi m^wpIkIiib —iA imvfmmmt did oit wp^eltf 

[tlpliflHiiiiUiatt Mil «M f er •t^W 9«4tMMi ir»iA» «Ml tlW touH ««<|id««4 
W ^ujpiisdietlMi l» rntiM p p (ia« e<li«g»*| Hifti mytd •«A< •shim MHliif 
lift to %• l»a>« «a MlA «9Mo«1^i«iM»» tttii aooiitgr ooiiri* m mmK^mr 90* 
[ Ii09« •tttMiA CM ar«np» nvoft aMtloft of »i»i4 omMtgr ooSLl^otigr* an w i i i ii 

^'"c* JHi JKft iMt A' ^ ^^'^ ^* ^l^^^^« *)* mt^mf lli«x«t«r«r« otttttftA 


emxvt nt«t«ia»d ft»i4 Al^teittiMi to Vm mXXmetim •f »£4d ftflii 

«li»f«r«v«« Ijgr re .««i «r tte far@^i«K ani Utovmim 9104 0^wtim 
UimHtUmw) 9mmsA waM mm^ wmt% to i^tty itifiii «r<i9jr tmA to 
miotols iito OHM o^ooiioBo, pvafUmX^rl^ mU ftli oti^ootion, nm 
«mtmA«K^ ooy tlmt i>ttlti«n«r Ho vrntUxOm^ «m oH«w«4 f i»« 
tiUm «» p«Uti«t in tiM^ mmm. mA «i«Mm« oi»i oontoMiiB, •• 
1» mn dtoo ift tho 9eii%iott 1amjm$» tixm^ tlist ottiH tr-^l-mmto io 
ViiUd« «ci4 tiuit tfao ooiftoooHwsio iiml ptiaayie ift^M»fi%» iovi«4 in tho 
eei«ty msmt of co^ o^iii^. « « llMi lovyli^ «r tihiiii mo immoA 
tt9on 01114 OF^lMsMMit ovo o <H»tot a »|g or oitforoo^Mlon o«A tli. t 
a^MMMifto twtmiw oaif Utot «of«r Kiaoo 1^ mtJty «r oiii« oMor §e 
t*« eoKKtf oiwvt YofUoAng ^vMMPMit, «io city wf J*arfc H|||«o, ito 
•^ ' ' anA oil owMoro of friTato i»^{)Oi^ o«ooo«tip ly i«ooon 
ti»i««^*. Hoifo ooatftttoftidjp jmmt^mi tm tvootod oi^ta ovoor of oow 
ft a« ote^aut^ljf MAI and Yoi4, otidi tiMfofooo not pr«$orlj 

Of tforoo«*»o,* 

|; im imm UtH 90VAgr«9i^ ISm ibsfmOmaU oUofO, oo 11 f^^rUm 

t9wm y^ Itoo lOPlt i0amX^ not ioouo* tlukt no ^mmaU t9W %im yw^ 
fonowM or tuo «otlo» oaA oS^^go^ Aitioo ootigitt to 1m» m^mm^ 

IW MhSO II901I tiM 4«f«MbilU« or OittHMT of «MM, ppgOV tO tHo 

U tho laiik 9a«og»»«ii tko 4«f oiMfaMito ollii^ tihot in tho 

>f«oo»t f ioooi f^m or tiM C4tar or i>«aift MAm. «■* r«» ootora 

f»{^ pout, t^ riMttoUa ooMtition itf oaid aiiy Imio Iw<»i oaiii 
ito ttitgr ooutteU Ibfio »OTto« mA 1m«i ««o«^Uo« to lovy tfao 
U u«lt or tax yopooovllod Iqr l«o to «0 oonto on omIi «ioo ^T 



ttU actual «oa ttoa»«i«f3r «iqN«Mti lUMl U«»iUUiM tf «Im City, «iii« 
tlu^t tlM aa^iuil «r Mi«h wniitmii i<ivy »t m liiw Pterins tlM$ l4tf| 
MteJlwy €r ycwM li«» %M» «i^fi«i«»t» Mv Will it IM aif fiei««t i»' 

of nil 6««ie4 •m^MHMM «mA UtS^$M%*i»9 of •<944 ^ly| «•« iat4:4 ly 
r©«»i»a Mtmiot Urn immmBm 9i yi» wfgt m mm>^ tmr wmtd ^mU 
m mam fenNUftdy w^m itiU aiy mA Om ^fmmif93m Hy «^4ltt|^ i« tt« 
MMR^ nKPnrpyi&UAti Hm nMWittt tf «Imi mmmtmm^ and 9ii%(U« HoMKHLt* 

haw %o otM ittt «r «Aid aaatiwnt abety. 

OR K«u[^«ilt IS, i^9» Hhi mUUm^w fUm& « t^nftio^Mii m 
til* 4tti and 9^ 9«vii|^»Ki^ «r im^A ummm mm « «MMra 4«i»ww U 

law a.iA, ««i, i^^, sth, 9t3i, letfe. um ^ind xam tmtmmm* ^ft«f 
iVipiMMii, lh» •mn mk»%a$tma mm iSmmmnm t# ikU oT »^m lm% mm^ 

tiMtfddf • Oa *^ii % tu% m mnum «f %3tm f^tumem^ fmr i$m 

9t^%ltUlmT^, t^ «»srt os^a^jwt ta«*t p@tiUo»ir»8 ^imnm'^ te Hal 
«rtslitoi «««i«r m%miA m m ikumamtr %q »bM iimr»tlTW>ii», iKHt« «f«Mr 

tm ^^m&tm» w»fw 9ikmm f^ariamt ^im la «fei>eh t» igmml, On '^wrtUl 

la ihi«ii tiMT t maUA mAw w^mfmik XWk tlM»^»«r. «b itaQr Sitt* 
int* Hw aottrt M«tft|a»4 9«UU«aMni «NHMHfa ^MBnnrvF «Im»wW» 
wi» ««f 4MMUMIS •l««tlag i« ttmA ir tlMiiP ©lunMHpa imh «i«llala« 
«• AtrtlMv «aMiA Um t«ni» tlw ««wH «r<s«vt4 fH^t |tt4«MKt Ini 
•Bt«]«« fay y«iiitaatr 1191a liiji 4timanmmm m ^ mm ter 


tlMM wan a im&fiam ^af •!• m ^uvy ttpftiri Hm i»»««}f of f a«| auMr 
lor Ite 4tli iiiiA dlh IMVKtfffni^ 9€ 4tftm)lkm^* IMn«iXMil aMWMy MM 

tbat htt mm ttm mgmat «f IImi 'btmiSm mA imrnem^ mi Mit f Mrih Ir 

(iff«f«4 ir ^ua^n^mUf* ^ i»dtim of ^Utiefi»r Urn er^vatt IttvtiiMltA 

«1M iQNi{ii«l «iMiiia«MVl« fiM fdilB&id iMMMflts ^% f«3r«li In lii« pitiUon 

of %bi». \)9aAt$ emA wafvm% tlMfttln em% fmftl^ iijp#i« iii«ii«h %hts« mp» mMr 
Ai« MiA uioNUlA Mkrtain miMi 9€ mmmyt tiom^AMne- t« Hi* fwiMr miA 
efr«0t t3M»vs«r« to lAw jsftvimi «r tlm iai»tvii«tt«Bi s«t«n«Mii« oV 
Joctedf oMA t tMM W Wpt i Hm ^its^ir voDnstioiS tlM» ««jr(t|.^ M» aiiw«%edg 

Mid HlO lU^aiTHiflt i|»p»«l«4 f VMi f OilOMMl* 

l^ior to ftift 43»tsy ^r %b» eoveity emiyt of ^Hm gtUHi Hift JttttL order of 
x»)oMiM9r 90« l.»6i^ lioiA mum^ m ^iioy ^» Ili99« owfto^od th^ la^ 
of (ho ^l^ittstimm «f «b» #lii|o«i|««r (p«1^ti«iwri lo o(i&%»liii»a «Mft 
tlukt «i>t:iUof}UMi ttsp ituBttfrns^ i« inifli««4| MiA lliat» owir »lji09 Hw 

oiti|f ««;Mfi«ii» MM «(U «r iio «frie|ja» i^fettott 4»tr &» ony ^mr wmlmtm 
U %km MiUo^tiott or onrorMMMBi of oiioolia mhhi'«m«»I»i mmtmimel^ 
votfMNfaMI it !«» tsioly lutmA dttty to £'«rr«.^4R fvMB «lw Mir«c<«owM(% of 
oalA iMtoooMMiMito* oT m» 9«r% HMn^ooTt siift tlksi mi^isov iism plskiMUiti 
HOP ^^1^ otteoar fovooMt tsG&tu «Im ■eiMiwiiOBigfc ^ tisi* Mat» iteY* f«* 
<|lMi»to<^ lli^ Ciiigr of i^ark Ui4«6» «h9 SN^^etfo ;9f ito fii«|r eotmoU* Mr 
Miy «f Us «aTioia3l«« to oitforoo Ibo eo^lootlon of a&i« i£bo»»«<3S}Mil»*« 
So tho aMMdod 12t3i 9Mf«4(»i«ik cdT «bM oaswnr t« e^st foi^Ch tited fflPoMMI* 
Iwitiwii Mtf oxtcMilMMo «r th(» '?ttr to? ttHct fUtmSk yma^ %n!»t •^^ 

10 T •-•>/■. TO 


m* yii.f£tm mmm u^^sd^mm im^» mmim^ a? rm emu. 

HOHX* li^l £U« 3^C!l» lf€')| &aA t\m -^l^m t& g^vmrand lif ih» soMi 

^f^^fn^M^ ^myHimnwf *- riii&M \\^w^ ^^-t ^^ ^^* ^ms* ^m.) 

"Oft A«iti3ra«ir II 4«i^fi»>iiiiiifi is $«met3iii»d aipfttn^it tli» |>l««dttr« iMt 

l|r wu^vly^'HS f »«te <tef <»4»tl'i«l-,r «ir luiiwiif «c»tS|r utaft^d oar ««iA%t«A lAiiiH 

«£r« ifitlsis this $tnM>iP»I t«ymt «f t^ rj^<ilDjr>;iil«n** ^iiilSMil<^* ^* 

tlHi pre«<mt e^^ae iix««» Fft^. iel«»%« m% &«Mit «Ci«r i»MA«t, to aitjstasa 

U&iilitfttfi of INi i^nriteff <«iis« t« %t rie«<qniiiMMi %ar V9m%rXmi» la 
rtlflild 9 «r Ita 0|U«» mA VtUacta >^ flf 18T3. (i^o* 99 X«ca 


ts « H«» «p0x» tJi^ p^fUpe;!^ «i»ew»0K-«sa .firem timt ds^tis tmtti p«iy»»^j 
eod ly »oatl9ja Si aja ^|N»^4«i| m^i^mmiMt^ mm l$mm wp»n the rmt^s^ri^ 
mfmwm€ tlm$ m:^ d.s|» «f the as<if©&,'ai(5nt untta pr^Aj mrA Hy .':;««tloc 
S ff 1*« -^^ ^ JUm 17, l^e^t fiwUnwrli^tng tli0 <ltTiida« of ssp»«4«l 

tlw «f»lX»*%l«ii ti»w»^, «A^ |i«t«Frf «t tJisrcwm at tins r«t» »r 6 ptfv 

inliiff«!«t* .^ii« it i« twHSistarijr tln^ t«!>n«gr «f tfc« li^ ©f ^lin itfttt, 
*«tfc iittiliar the wmijutmm «f ar^M /« « ««ift flio pmmmt img^ 

Tmvrmmpm '<?*» th.-i% » a«iitri«?t«r oi? lH5n#5«M«r, «l^ !• if«i9»l»«4 %» 

JWPf^ftt, «9«n ^*>« «Afl9Ui«« «r ffdhtttel «r «te City mt nxx^m* ^««^*^»»ff 

tJilnk «tet tli« eity «sai h»m te heeap<t <!• »f»gr that %%& yyr^»^.^m:9iiyw^ im 
Viliaflv, dif! fl»t «ui0tt lifitd ^rtl«l« ^, i#Hai tt «r-^rs3r» ti»?,t it i>rjiM4 
m ortitaiiiica ^Mf^namtor m^ .'efied si»I had i»i»irinaii« m m^fivxws^nt ftap 
«!(• iflpiei>v«wttt m.^lm^m4. i^m"^* tf«?tflMB* #.« «» thtnlr lilbtt ti«ef« 
i« «flr m»r%% in llie e«Mt«titi«B «!ftt «» r*«ar4 dw»« not i»rf im^ttwlir 
ifc>w U»«t ftba nu««« «tt4i^i*»y ^m» *iiy AiitluittwNI t« Sii«Utiit« %bm 
iiime^vX fMmnmmi^ !»NHMi«4ingft ftji ^«t«iiti«Mi* tt §• t« Iw yrnimwiil. 
ttiftt hft mm dolir ei»«aMi9risi«a M» ta ^, 

U %m iwxt oont^tt^^ Iqp efwmiwa tliAt ti» ^titif>n <m lt» 
tmm d««ff not dtMiLiftii* f k«i» Safti«»tlflsg tiuit »«uti«Mr iMia Mt tai^ 


tm^UsAtifm i& thttt 9Ct%9W tte ^mmatvmt of tin* 4^9mdi9m%» to Um 
iietiiiim mi9 inwrvttS^iy thvar fii«4 «ii «iMr«iy Vrnfla^ w4vl«g 1Im> 

o t mwa eim ^^ i^GtUm mt^ ummtUrn* ' 1w BitmstA for r«lVv«liig T%lM»t 

hy mmAmtntf if liui d»ll«9r luw 1M«» 9r«4u(ii€(i«| to x^tss^tmaaiit* ri#Elii, 
er if MHKhiaiiii isrA ditwap^lffir niXl i^siat f r'<M the i««iii»e« «r tiM 
iftt'it* or if tSi* Hi?3itii «f £S$ird pi»r«an» lui^ mtmerwmd^ tim fmmmi^ 

r^ftord 4ft^@ nut diacsi^ttii nayr auiii tmst^* 

«t«itiit« (^ tii'-dt; '.tidft^ ^t up Iqr 4«if«!«laatiti> In tlif^ir smmttaf h&& wvm 
hiitmm W» ttiAt «£Msi •ettEienHMd sail yiev^«ve %ar« it« yvwHMtttiMi* fte 
"fin* jf*f0f* *tatiK%« «^ Mt insitlA«n»4 in tfete laiKtwv* i^tlkeuiih tte t/m 
ymsBpm m^t^tAtfn ^ Xi»|Wti«i»« mm m% ^ m m dt«f«aMi« '^ ^0 m^t uad«p» 
i»t«iiA lli«t Urn $im9r^ «it&ttrt» ^ x.i»iiKtioM» «!^:itlA«« t» a a9«clal 
Mn^iiMMiit pnMi*«4ij|g* l^irtliftinMnrtfv ttto yctiti^^cxtx^ i« a»i auin^ »a 
tlM btnAv* lut M^in «ia3r to «»«v«l 1ii& ^^^ t« Vi*««e«A with thi 
' :<^X3i>.wti«B of att 3^e»»aMiiiit s^XaeHisAy XtrUiA m-M mm^ttmt^ »9aMmat 
priv»;|» prnp«xiiar« «bA tii a^ w w ro fap t ai* mA Xmtf ». aiiffl«&«iit tw« t« INQT 
KiM «lii antf 7Xh ItwitctaUMiifct^ ^ Itsr yu^ie iMfiittf tto* VurtheiRMMNi* 

a n* «»d«y*t4»Mi Urn l«ir, tli& <iiity t« l«ff and roiffvy «»d «€a.l*et is 
e eontlmaiAi;; one $s^ i» fM»t 4i&cffcit>.z|l»^ ttnttl. M«ii|# fittto taw «rttat«« 
fiWI e9ll««te4 U^ iNit|v« tto iMmdii* Vlk»r« Is st U^ttktliMi f««aMl in 
titetiom 48 «r iMd AjrU<l0 9 vi tb» Cities seh^ VilXissf e A«t, ijgvMi&nf 
« f iY« yttai^» linAt;v&iOB VKffmt ttm l»rf nf » nvw ASMffflMeiit aiMMi^ 
Aeiit»4iiMiits« %ut tha t«»M»t r«ii»fil <!•«» »^t 4iiNa.MM» thst a acv 
«ia«»rii!Mnii «0«liij3t doXinw^ntQ i« 3ou^t| ar it a««i«suir]r» IseoBCwat 
if tile aity igiXX oantiMMs tte eoUoetinft af idM arielaiil afla«»anMil 
«8WbMrt ivlvmla ftropertgr «hM| yMqr |t& qwa tiQ9«ia iiustaUaasta ff 
l^vaie tmiiitflts, Qmm ayvartstly will ^ Mtf ialaat AmUa «p»»t«« 

** iMk#4«Mft *Wa Vh» lilt «Ma iiiMiMMi* WAt.a Ikw «ao»0 « iwraf.. 



^•9« wm% dbom Hi^t pritfs' to th& fiUug 'Ui&r«»«r utiy 4i*mmA turn 
mmi/tt h«smht &;^vlyias i'm mtm^maM^ imi uhla sviX» 4««t» nev 99'Aiir 

tim -'ttjft its iii«f!»i?« «3^Tli: m^' ^im^smt swr* aMbi :^4U'iiss« i'hs <lttif« 

yuv^vnmriif lam fhsrsftm «dM«e ^f# it is to ^i^^ ®i»i ths ?;^>^ri^t snA 
<S«t.l(,nfi.|,€ Utfi- <^3lls(ii»r hm% '^•f^a xsodQ pA.^tii:» uafftftslafti* If us 
C9l1«"cVir Tu9 %#t^ s«0l^istsii it i«i t2'% iuty »f Vtm ]<^or ^idgui ^ildsr* 
K'eo if #«@i^^ii&i« iKH^v 

It is rurtif-ifiT' «a«ii<^i^ti by m-wm&l tlt-r^t tham i« nciMiii 
C9nifj^i»e'.l io ih^ ]Ktiiicm« «f in t3u.- xtmaf^, is inliti&ts «i^&i tias 
tsi«a !%9rt.-s*,3at&at i«'ri«*a« sjt tiif^ ist«& S0»i of tbe is^r^v^^wp^, ov 
the t«tiii aoree-wMtts a^Xletytf^d, imim^^ '^^ mttmat- sf ^i<sf*.--n4i3i»t» 
clmvs t3iSj?« i}»9 ftii attA ?t3i inatraijaeiiis df lbs i^ossi^otsilto «i(uin»i 
yrlTst* i^«:p«y^ SUA f ^ yiabiis l»«n'^its lu&ire aoi lii»ett fsid, l}e« 
smss it i(» t9»i*«ljt ntst9<l la wStt'^tmm '^b&x «v«r ^iam tSM Tft^-ity 
itt9, idbsn tlis «#Xi««ti«» iif t^ 9%n t»8t«ia.iiy««it of '^Ul.1^*9 
M^sftssMit m» <ft«fs»%«df t%a ':it]r %i&!3 ifQtit&i9»e. frmm ^i|>irr«fri^tUm 
iity s«B f«r «^9 pKjyniwst of t^ usm^ii peirtim ^t i%& pt^iiaic >«iief !•• 
Mill tvmm esXX«ctl«s «i>s «^ imtt Ttti ifi^taUnwits f>^aiii'nt prirr^s 
yvtpurty* '« think it Is I— sIsHaJ, «iat tte tHsJl MiiMMaMnt 


laried mis* «r vtutt ttm ttfXal cost or the totaJL ri»s«8:;3»e!nt0 
cc»llv}oio:S mra* .>ad «e Ihizik it lo the t^uty of the ''it^ te 
rtnum t)m coXlootiQa of tht< wn|»if4.d lasstrHnenta psoA tiierclagr 
pAQT liB 4^- 1 dt^t»« fU4 (3vid«i}<^Hl Ity t}ie uz^peddl hoiidto held by 
9<%titio>u>3;'« c«ans«X for d^tfi^i^disita 3iu3 »6t arguti! titfit tfav 
ord-:T taf tiio c-iunty oauri «r ^JWLy r'P, 1699, ©y tbe nm^ lyf 
^10,^ mrdcr of ^mMmv ^g 3l9(SEa, fii^i.tioiM»'d In p93tt%^99(;gik XO-cH «r 

for the retjDOitt la^loatcd th^^ Itt^S^srstt 9f the eirouit 
Court 1ft ef f Imod* 

mm m 

nimtam stakk^ koine iasia#s«i 


tj^miOL GjanoLx., \ 


PP«llElllt . 

^l9loA. 651 

tliift is en ai»p»'4 tinm « 3u^i0mnt for f^lOX 3r«nd<ir«d 
Marttti 7» 1.916, in th« l^uiieipiil Court of Chi«««e agaiost th* 
def (»nd«at, Patriek CiurroU., in foitpr of tho ^aointiff , Hioluiard 
otark* fho aotioa «ao iHroa^t to roevror a lawdonoo wliiflii 
piHiatiff oXaiawd to iMt duo him undov t]to iHrovisleno of a o«7» 
t&ia ImildiAg omtraot oaco«»ted hy ttm |«rtioo en Hegr 30, X916« 

cat the triol, i^cii was Iteforo tho oomrt without o 
^ury, it «^p«arod tliat Urn iMXoaoo iilii#i pleiiatiff olained «m 
due hin ojooimtod to ^WS', «»d that the def eadeaat oXaiaed th«t 
nothing ww» 4ito plaintiff iHsoasioo of tlm Xmtmr^B f«llitro to 
o«aqpIy with eortaija, prorivioao of the emttrc^et ond to eo«ploto 
th« work witliia m oortain tino. Xt tms providod in tho eon* 
%9&e% thrAt tho «ork ahmad bo fuXXjr oeaipXotod *'on or 1»oforo 
thirty eaXeadtyr do/o nftor ]^Xaotoriag io dry." thoro ims ovid- 
oneo tondine to show th&t tho p^Xaetering hoeoiM dry about 
Soptomher X7, X9X6, thiit tho work «ao fuXXy oooQ^Xotod Ohout 
Ootobor 23, X9X6, and that, honoo, t]M»ro wso a oix doyo doXay 
ia tho eoai>Xetioa of tho work* It wao furthor proridod in tho 
ooatraet that "ahoaXd the oontracter faiX to finish tho work 
at the tian agreod upon, ho ahaXX pay or aXXow the ownor, tiy 
way of Xi Hid. ted d jB»e«^8, tho suia of $4 per dion, for oaoh 
ond ovary day thoro after that the said work ohaXX reioaia in» 
eoB^Xoto** the oourt, in aoooooiag pXalatiffU daaagoo at iXOX, 


evld«iitty allermd lolaiailff the f«Xl a»o,mt of th* l»l«i»« eliii». 
ed t« W &»•, via, 1125, aad de<tuet«d tharmfTmm %hm mm ot #24, 
dsuMtfts fer delay, 6 dtgrs «t $4 per day* 

Aft«r a totI^w «f th© abtstraet «f ttm r«<Mnrd anft tJae 
brl«f » filed «e ear« of the opinion th«!it, %Qr the find tog ant 
jttdgBMmt eatored, sulMtaiitlal ^utatlee has 1m«a doM, and, thera* 
f«r«, tha iudgnant will 1m afrjbnned* 

BanMa, ^ J., «ad Xat^tett. J., eflnear. 

< ' I 

3®« - 25557 

a corporation^ \ 

\ Appellee, 


CITY 0? C!IIC/sQO, \ 


ciRcirxT cotmr, 


219I.A. 652 


In auQ action in 3.a8UBg>ait , conrieneed BocesA>er :^2, 
190C, to recover of the defendant. Board of Sdtteation of th» 
City of CS'iieagOt for the purchase prioo of certain ooaJ. sold 
and delivered under a ^sritten contract, the court on the hear- 
ing on May 29, 1910, instructed the jury to return a rerdict 
findin^; the issues for the plaintiff bxiA assessing plaintiff's 
damages at the sua of Hi, 416*73, vhich they did. Judgawnt 
against the defenc^ant for this amount was entered and this 
appeal f ollOwod* 

The pleadings are volUBiinouo • Plaintiff's original 
declaration consisted of two special counts and the consolidated 
cmomon counts. On June 2, 1915, plaintiff hy leaTS of court 
filed six additional counts. To all counts defendant filed a 
plea of the general issue with notice of set Off and four 
special pleas, two of which were pleas of set off, to which 
special pleas plaintiff filed replications* 

In aepteaber, 1903, the City of Chicago was divided 
into fire fuel districts for the purpose of supplying the school 
buildings therein with coal* Districts 3 and 4 are herein in- 
volved. iJistrict 3 was west of the Chioago river and south 
of l!adison street, and Jl^lstrlot 4 was on the south side of 

iCX ,«R V 

.X^l X. 


the cityt east of the C^leago rlTer« 

On SepteBiber 5, lOOS, plaintiff, an Illinois corporation, 
entered into two a«p<urate contr^^ts with oaid Board of £<auoation, 
defendant, to deliver coal to ^^1 sOhool buildings, located rospee* 
tively in said diatriots 5 and 4, for and during the aciiool yeta? 
ending JUne 30, 1903. The idLnd of coal to lae dellTered vas designated 
in said oontraets aa "Indiona Block Coal**, BXid the stipulated price 
per tda vraa fd«87 for that dellYored in distriet 3, and $2 •92 for 
that delivered in district 4. Hie coal company (plaintiff) covenanted 
a»d agreed intor alia to "promptly deliver the eaid eoal, i^ieh shall 
1M the heat of ite Icind, to any and all of the various school build- 
ings* in aaid distriots, *'in mxcih. qu^tntities and at audi tix>e« as may 
be directed by the buaineas manager of the aaid Board of Education, 
and should it, from any cause or at any tiroe, fail to proioptly deliver 
coal ^ydored to be delivered to any of the public achool buildizifi^ 
aforesaid, the buainearj loanager shall have the right, either per- 
aonally or through other a xHaiom he vmy designate, to purchase from any 
coal dealet in the vicinity or el8eii9siere, and to have delivered, not 
e:coeeding ten tons of coal at a tlsw, to supply the want of any school 
building", wMch Idie coal coai^pany *has failed to supply in accordaiwe 
witii the order of said buaineas manager within three dava cfter tba 
receipt of auch ordf;f* r said coal so purchased by aaid buaiiaaaa 
nanager to be of any grade or quality which can be obtained froa 
coal dealers in the vicinity of auch oohool building, and to purchaao 
the anae at the expense of" the eoal o^jpany, "and to deduct the 
difference in coat, if any, betiwen the price t^iua paid and tha 
o«itract pries hereinbefore specified, froa any moneya (h»e or 
aecruin^:; to" the coal company froa the Board of Bdu cation under 
the terna of aaid contracts; and "aaid coal is to be furnished * * 
•ad delivered under the aupervieion and direction of the buaineaa 

Hi 0'if»l 

rmo Bi 


ef 34ait«»%l«Bi« «»4 • « at liiQ %$m iaffi}ti9ii«a to tSto a^etf ie^attdxiv*** 

«r MjU a»ii«ai«ii« «r the ««tta «NMiNiiy« it w^MOa |i»i^ t:bi ^ofim imi* 

%Um»A f«r tit&A eona* «p«i9wmt %» 1^ laskde «a;r ui^i:) ilh» %: rtifloolMi 

t« tilt «993Wfii& ^ tlw BcNttftt «f ;'^(3a«»i!^tjUtti «»^ of ^m» c%»Bit«««i on 
Suil-diiiga aoid a^flKoidii^^ and *fi(ia p^inA^ttle %« Im weii^ luf wmema^ 
63tmm 1K90& ^fekK ixmmmjf of t^ ^it^ osf @iiie»g», di;^i»«t eadi to Iw 

mA swnnrod In )iiittli«ti«iiiMi ^it»i ttmk %lam %^ tlM» it ys^tim^^ di^ 
HTer«4 lUU ftf said ]toidtl«aftft M«^ Cftat* ?@^ip«'^ fmt \km in Hw 

d|:r«9to4 1ii|r HQtiA l»itia»ti«i iaaitMi|s«'ir» t^it iN&id ««fij. w«u» ttCHM^tod tor 

fu^y iMi^ @f^ |M«f 0SHB4 «Ull of its etyv^atiifts(t« in ssald ^;u»its»&9t» 
aae»tti««t4t y»% ^im d«if<;»adUm% ^wis^iM not 9«^ ^9t mrXnisi eoal so 
dtatvoviNl to iStm i&mmg» 9f ^atmnS^mt^ «%«« ^m& In f^«hi»p <^ mdA 
i^e€i<a oauntsi Hm j^ulutlff aIoo tnmrrwl i» jsiitia'toiiOQ iSiut Hm 
d«f««d«ttt i«s«Bii;l^alJ^« iHid In iri^latJMw of 6«|idl «iQ94t%3^«lMff mi^ottd 
to i»«7Mlt itii %it«Jjiooj» iwBftwjitF %» msim M» m^UtimiM tte&t 9X«iii*» 
turf issao Mtlttloa to Iw piia f 4BP oftsrtf^iR <»<ifi3. a«}}.iim2w^2 i3atk% on 
to»iiit« JlOy 3L» ^9c>3t o«4d ^wusinMm OBMincfty ^<^ i"(iB3a» n oet^Uf ieutt 
Ouftt Plaintiff ]bad doUvoiMd to «ofoitiSi«ft <$«rttiia eor^ t»it tli^t 
oais iMoAiiooo mm00»» »t a«af onSimt* » »(»<itte8tt» loti^o mi odtiitiQii 
to iif4tl onrtif &«»to tli«it ooj^toiR «iB»»it9 fiOtm^l^ be ti^^ct^d f rott 
%» 9Pi«« «r ooiA ootiX* vMoii 0^4 ^i^^tioim imhpo lovviViap «I|A 


not Ittwftilly Gbargealilft a^aliujt pl&iatlff » ete« 

Xn one of defendant's »:9ecl.a3. ploaa of »et off it it 
alleged in su^stenee t^^t plaintiff was, ^ofore and at the timi 
of the camaenoewent of the suit, and still is, indelited to tho 
defend«nt in the sua of $ll9459»8r> for 'the dif ierenoe in priee 
of coal iRircli&sed from local dealers in Distriets zmiribmrdd 3 
and 4» under the teznaoiy provisions and oorenaats of certain 
contracta^ * « aore specifically set forth in plaintiff *s deelaratiOB 
and additional ccnints, * * said difference in priee of said coal 
being the price paid for the saae quality* efficiency^ grade asA 
character of coal to be furnished unuer * f said contracts *' * to 
local daalera in coal in the roapeuti're localities ne^axeat the 
Bcdiool buildinga ncedim^ aaid coaj jl* 3Les» the contract prices set 
forth in aaid coutraota * * for the respective gradea, ^ality* 
(^araoier and efficiency of coal so to be delivered and furnished 
by the said plaintiff to the dcfendantt * * isdiioh said sum of aoney, 
so due froa plaintiff to defendant, exceeds the daao^s 0uotained 
by the plaintiff By reaa<m of the non*perf erraioiee by the defendant 
of the seTerol supposed proaiaeQ in the said declaration mentioned, 
and out of li^iioh said sua of aoney the def&ndettt is ready and lidlling 
and hereby offers to set off and allow the plaintiff the full amount 
of said daxaosiges", etc. The other special plea of set fldtf , while 
m»re in detail* is to the saae effect* In defendant* a notice of 
set off there was incorporated & tabulated list purporting to n^ow 
in detail the soTOral aaounts deducted froa plaintiff* s said contract 
"for eoal purchased to Iceep up tho supply at the varieus schools.* 
Xn this list appeared names of coal dealers, the various dates of 
alleged purchases of coal, the various amounts paid, the contract 
9rice of the coal, the deductions Biade, the total sua of all 
doductions, ogsregatinF. $11« 459.86, and the nsnss of the sdiool 


liuildings to Tdiich coal was alleged to haTo l)oen doliverod* 
Ob the trial it w«a agrood that the contracts st«t 
up in plaintiff *o deelaration nmro the ccmtraotfl of the parties. 
Plaintiff Galled as witnesses John Ouilf ord» business vmimfffir 
of defendant during the jrears 190;;: and 1903; u« K. ^ranklsady 
an eiapXojree of defendant during said years; and Harry H« Braolesttt 
mtditor of defendant since Se]»teaiber> 1914. And plaintiff intro- 
(^ced Tarlous exhilsits taken from the records of defendasts* 
Plaintiff's evidence shoiied that during the aonthe of January, 
February* April and July, 1903, plaintiff had delivered certain 
coal to defendant and had rendered bills therefor to defendant; 
thai the coal had been reccired and used li^r defendant but had not 
been fully paid f or*; and that thee amount unpaid for the coal 
sKgrosated the sua of $11,41@.73« Plaintiff's exhibit 9, supplemented 
1;^ the tostisiony of the nitnossos Braoioett and Guilford, showed that 
plaintiff had rendered defendant a bill for #15, 062 •76 for coal de- 
livered during the xoontha of Jamiary and Peboruary, 1902; and that a 
isenoranduB had be«n vxritten at the foot of the bill, making a 
deduction of |9,731.59 for "differenoe in price of coal pirchaeed 
to Iceep u^ supply", and leaving a balance adstittedly due plaintiff 
of $5331.21. Plaintiff* s ei^Oiibit 9-A, supplestented by the testlawny 
of said witnesses, showed that a varrsaat for $9331.21, dated April 15, 
1903, and drawn by defendant on the Treasurer of the City of Ghicago, 
was paid on Beoeaiber 4, 1905 to plaintiff; that said v^rraat iMre 
on its faoe, the words and figures, "Less difference in price of 
coal purchased to loeep up mipply, $9,731.55"; end that attached 
to said warrant was the following stateaentit 

"Board of Education of the City of Chiofago claia» 
tlM right to credit itself with t>ie difference in price 
of coal purclmsed to keep up supply, as above. United 
Btates Coal Co. disputes the said credit of |9,731«55. 
fhe balance of f'&,331.21 is this day paid by the Board 
of ^::ducation of the *^ity of C'ticaco to the United states 
Ceal Co., and received by the United States Coal Co. 

:ia9t fldv" -^ 

i i 


without prejudice to ttxe rights or claims of either 
the Board of Sducatioo of the ^ity of C}iio;:iCG or the 
United 3tat«ft Coal Co.** 

Plaintiff* o o^diibits 10 and lO-A* supplesicnted by th« 
testimony of seid witne8sea« disclosed that plaintiff hud rendered 
defendant a bill for $5393.92, for ooal dcllTsred during the awnth 
of April, 1903; that a deduction of sia490,52 for tht eauiB alleged 
re aeon had "been made; that on K&y 37, 1903, defendant had drawn a 
warrant for $3,903.40, iriiloh wa@ paid plaintiff on Deoealrar 4, 1903; 
the flaid warrant bore en ita fae© the cndoraeraent , "Reduction a/e 
fuel purohaeed froas local dealers, ^1490.52**; and that attached to 
the warrant waa a eioilar etateaient as above aet fort^» iQ.aintiff*s 
exhibits 12 and 12«A, suppleniented aa aforesaid, disclosed that 
plaintiff h&A rendered defendant a bill for $S38«21 foroooal delivered 
during the month of JUly, 1903; that a deduction of $194.66 for the 
sane alleged reason had ^^een laade; that on 3ept«^niber 16, 1903, 
defendant had dram a warrant for #343*5$, vhiidii was paid pl&intiff 
on Bec«ifl»er 4, 1903; and that attached to tibie w^^rrant was a similar 
statenent as tra» attached to i^i^chibit 9-A. The aggregate sum of said 
three deductions is |11,416«73* 

The defend;mt en the trial relied upon its eXaim Af mt 
off to defeat plaintiff's olaira. It called as witnessos Cl«^ton 
Kark, president of the Board of i<)ducc:.tion in 190:^, and U* H« Franlc- 
land, previously osdled as a vritness by plaintiff* Mr* Hark 
testified to Glaring various conversations and telephone talks ia 
1905 with Mr, O^Gscra and Mr* Lawler, representatives of plaintiff, 
regarding deliveries of coal, and to having various eonvex'srtions 
with Ut, Guilford and Mr* Frankland regarding said dcllverieo* Mr* 
Yrankland testified in substance that in the years 1902-3 he was 
employed in the offiee of the business manager of defendant, Mr* 
Guilford, in the capacity as asoistailt manager; that saBaetiinc in 
jTsBttary or Tebruary, 1903, he had a conversation ^th Mr. 0*Gara 



iA««cf tna' 

t&\ i$i 


c»iij -ry- 


:fs:.%-.T e 




in hia (^raakiandtai offioa; that he infonaed 0*6&ra that eer» 
taia schools were not getting sufficient coal; that 0»G,ara re- 
plied t^t hia ocnnpany ima "doint's eTerythin^ post^ible to make 
deliveries"; an4 he alao had certain oilier converaations over 
the telephone wit^ Mr* Laivler urging deliveries* 

itfter a careful consideration of the record before us 
«• are of the opinion that the trial court was fully Justified, 
at the dose of all the evidence. In instructing the jury to re- 
turn a verdiot in favor of the plaintiff and asseseing plain- 
tiff *s damages at tlie auv of $llt416.73« and in entering the 
Judgment appealed from. The evidence clearly shoved that plain- 
tiff, under said contracts, had delivered coal of the value sf 
$11,416*73 to the defendant, iihidi defendant had not paid for, 
and that defendant had received pnd used sal£. ooal* The defendant 
claiaed . in its pleas and notice of eet off, in substanee that 
beeause of plaintiff* s failure to mk» deliveries of coal utnder 
said contrrxts xoany schools were in iexmadiate need of coal; that, 
"to keep up the supply", it purchased l^irge quantities of coal 
Of other dealers at pri<»o greater than tho contract prioes; 
teat it had a right, under »uch circuniatancea, and under the terms 
of said contr<%cts, to deduct the dif rercnce froa smy monies due or 
ecsdag due to plcJjitiff j and it did laalce deductions sfigreg&tiag 
saici mta. But defendant failed to sake sosMi essential prool*. It 
did not proTs that at the tlias or tiass in (pestien the plaintiff 
failed, as stated in the contracts, "to promptly deliver coal 
ordered to be do live red to any of the public school imildings", or 
that a' any tixna it 'rtoM necessary to "suppl y the want of any 
Mtool building" Iqr purchases elseiaihere, or that lainliff at 
sny tine failed to supply coal "in accordance with the o.rder of 
said business amnaeeJf within three days after the receipt of 
•tteh order," ilor did defendant prove the aaiounto of coal pur- 


oliae«d elaevftMtre, ttor df vtiom purohas^d* nor for iritiat purpose. 
The laurden of proving Its elain of 0&t off rested upon the 
defendant. ( P^ttlo v, vOBt lalse. 3 S«hb&« 83!i; i>ftat t. Orow « 70 
111. 91; ■$XIU V. C^thr^ . 117 111. 458,) 

After the reply brief and arguraent of counsel for the 
Board of Bdu cation wut filed in tMa oourt, couneel for tlM 
oosJ con^any filed a written motion that eaid p^^agphlet be striolcen 
from the f ilea« which jaotion wats rcswrred to tha hearing* That 
iaoti<m is now denied. 

S'or the reascHM indicated the judgment of the Circuit 
Cotirt will bo affinaed, 

Bameot ?• Jft and liatoliett, J.* concur* 

317 - \26575 



COOK coosmr. 

219I.A. 652 

WL. jrusaic; aEiDtmr D^u^</i:K3X) Tim cpiinoN of ths cnrRT, 

On June 1» 1918, the plain tiff, vrtbur Buelen^j, brought 
suit against th« defendant, -harles Lindl^erg, before a justice of 
the peaoe in Cook County, wiiich resulted in a judgment againat the 
defendant for :§200, From thia Judgiaeat defendant perfected an 
appeal in tho Superior Court of Cook County, and plaintiff there 
subBeciuently entered his appe^ranoo, and on January 37, 1919, a 
trial was had ^ n^vo . hc^f ore a Jury, x-e suiting in a verdict find* 
ing the issues for plaintiff and assessing plaintiff *8 danagea 
at tho sum of ^80, upon which rordiet the court, on February 8, 
1919, entered JudgEBsnt against defendant for that amount, and 
defendant appealed. 

It appears from the bill of exceptions (containing the 
documentary OTidenoe introduced on the trial and the substance of 
the testimony of the plaintiff, the dofondant, and one witneaa for 
defendant, au well aa the giren and refuaed instructions) that 
defendcmt v&a the general contractor for the erection of 30 frame 
hungalowB in Gary, Indiana; that on Jslovember 6, 1916, plaintiff 
and defendant entered into a \4rittea contract v^berein plaintiff 
agreed to do the plastering work on aaid bungalows for the sua 
of ^11 for each building, - §56 to be paid him toy defendant when 
"tirst CO t of brosming is on* and the balance when hard f iniah 
ia complete, and the "payment of this amount to be made on eyery 

r^i J 


f iTe building?; Hi&t after plaintiff had flaiahed dol»g tbe \sv99a, 
coat on Uie flTe lulldingc in qaeation he asked defendemt for his 
pajr at JJM^S p«r buildin^^^ iKtt defendant a&id hB could not make audi 
payaent bocouae the o%mer had not paid him and could not {;et a loan 
Hud lliat ho (plaintiff) "had "bettor stop ;;ork«; l^at plaintiff 
thereupon atopp^d work; thatt according to plaintiffH toEtiiaony, 
the work he had alxo&dy done was reayonahly worth |40 per "building, 
or ^SOO; that Bu'baequently, at plaintiff ♦e request defendant moved 
uoim of plaintiff* B material and paid a freight charge of $S, and 
suhjioottently paid pltdntiff the mxm. of ^t. 

Defendant dainftd thixt after allowing eill Juet credits 
plaintiff was ci^y entitled to recover ti^& »um of f;48. The jury 
"by the verdict, however, ©ecuiin^iily jiiloired plaintiff for the work 
done v#200, deducting therefrom laaid fr«i^t dfuirge ixnd payjncnt 
assrosatin^ #20, and *jw think they were justified imder all the 
evidanee in 60 doing* 

It ifl urged the.t the court erred in modifying instmotion 
Ho« i, preaented by defsndant, end giving it ao modified, "but in 
our opinion the iniitruotion ae Bodifi<3d vao proper. And in view 
of the language of said modified instruction we do not think the 
court erred in refuaing to gire dsfendaat's fourth instruction. 

The jfudgaent ie affiraod. 

Bamea, P* J., smd liatchett, J», concur* 

"■,-*■ »n\'. 7 It ■•=■•'.•. i& 

:. ^-^c-- 

vQ^^il ,-. 

kiIO^¥«'-^'X» -Ur^A 4;« 

- '.aii...;.r ■- •■' 

, 9 tf^'wjiC ■ f ^ • < 

325 - 25 



R oorpcratl<m,\ 




a 00 rr oration, . 

" 4 / 


\ J ' 


ciRctJiT ooTJirr 
or oooK cotnrrr. 

219I.A. 652 

Vft. JUFTICI GPIDIIT delUer.d \U opinion of tb« court. 

Tor th© r«a8ena Udloatod la tU opinion of thU 
apptlUte court, thle day flUd, la th« os»« of Rothtchild \ Coapaay, 
appellee, 2£1S^ Boeton Store of Chloago, appellant, General Sumber, 
85983, the order of the circuit court <>£ Cook County, entered May 13, 
1919, adjudging Mayo Frledberg, appellant herein, guilty of oontei^^t 
Of court m violating a prellainary Injunction, and liapoelng upon hlM 
a fine of t^s and ooBKtlttlng hla to the county jail for a period of 
two days, ie rcYeraed. 


Barnea, P.J., and Matchett, J., concur. 


urn m imm 


s:-vi.; t!-v3t', 

mllll'::3» A# T0yilll lit 

/ C.-.'' 

2191.A. 6 52 

II'U Jftfi5Tt0S !St.4!K3P?f^ 1S?^T-- 

;lst':5fM fSf 

Hfikile 3iB;9^iHr« «QM9&alaflitt mmtttmes 4t %>t^« 1% nieui vi»firifl4 liar 
SIM \%XX dUi«i»d liMitt Oft ."4tipt8t ^« iMf MflirilX'^ t« 

tlM««r]N»(Si !»d «hui Use %«i%a|> ant@H«i& l4Maa@4 i»i» ^fXt^Mi^*M$ Hiafl 
iMt|6 fWfte t% tmam tmem^ 9i pmtmmtai ppdiie^rfar* .IttoiMAini « nwti 

Witll A tffftWt #••« t9MMIKl04 1^ hlSSHMlSbr «XBft idfto* li^flll txtttit 4»4»d 

WM m Uea «» tot ' Xmtn^ id ii^«i^ tKvo* Ift l%4Mi 1^3^ co^ i^mmtrt 

Mid e«iu^«'&3i find bMd %•«« tniil 3Uivvi wmm m. ^3m mil* aft 

ii G c. 

tat»i.»at mw is^mimA ;*a« lw»jLl«irftd i^tm wm^ Ilea ^<tii X&nfmt^ 

M^arait i^iuMi fnid villi X»^»k iiit«m^«%» «ft^ tlK^i l4^^i^ft%B tm tii» aot^t 

tht pjp^NMr^ '%><m(^ la 1^ 2;(la ia mi^ p.mmiii'S.ia»i^§ taA titssLt ^ ix^ia 
idicut «« t«la «ttt « 4tt«a tiiNim ^lii 8MWi» «iiA «rma4« ioa»«fi r9»%»i4a»d» 

tt«««3ttiitla($ «if the ia4«>%»«N*«« jP«v v^ii<»ii i^^ mM ^if soo«oo aftt# 
yro^Hgr yalA «r *l«Uv«i^a t« mAA '£0mm tUmvt^m «r piiit; t# him 
or dlT^Heftd* flttd df all his f!^«%« aosiiA dolags* <^^ Ui«t lM> al^^it b» 

tf the iiit»t «»^ lor i4a ^^<A^ ^a^ %(mtht ia» %j«id ^B3»t w^WKt 


mn^duaiiyjarC? Itai l»«!»t bei^iy. -^ ew^ itsvm 1^««il &oli«®1N!Ai »r '«tlHii 
|i4«^?)w»iitd SuKTS %««tt «ia4i; t« e$^^ f#laaft) the preei's^ C»»(nrlj»UAii 

ad^oimtt^j tte^t t^ ««3.istt«irj?4 Si«»r«periy dfl^wrv^t 119 Ijy «ifc|A 

:m$^> sfi^^tljug -Out %ct <J^«i]ia«ait t0Mm mU^^ W mtiKlv ii« M%uar«fit 

}.lK)n« Xt .lA^asjLii^ the imMm «^i ttet m^is^mm Pt Vi^ «io%Bt (^««|«» 

dUc^a» &£»&t.':i t^ ^Itvvra^y «f the mXl^Wsml mm-tiMitft^ iiicOudiiilg 
tbf^ xioU f iiT H^t^^* wi«KBC«4i llgr %3»x»i ^N^NIi on etui's, lat iisRtv«s 

and ii^# It %«» 
^it l^««Sltl^t '^^i»«^ INs^aWKl and 

«»» ^ii^ Mid it wm f^&fmd m mmm mm tm^ um mmi nm 
\Sm msm wkim mm mm «« a^ in«« ^h» 



«i^ >MilN0^ 3* m'^U& a«3^i mat iufrtj^ ma givim %• | 

fiv idM §Hmm MK «f #2,100, »ai «r i»%i4fti m^ «w^ i«i».iii t^ iori 

m«ak %m hmi 1^»«ii Mft unmi «^ }iaHRiii»«ift 9€ »&iim^i m^% m m 

Wa m%tiaski '^p tut ftdw«itiiii ttT m» mBi%Q fm m^^^t 1tte>^i j 

[ ms^ fm mhmi^ n^t tk 4tt€iMmmy 

St«%riat mrt fm i^m MmrtSmm r^^sv^gnt ^ XUIiM&ii» (Si«a«toii$ ft 
%xm imm tuns ®is««iw «r mm matm^, 

ift«« d«C«wMil» ^mm%9 mmI ^ninHMNi^ ^.^t ivHwot WufA m 



fm am %9A iximmtts^ it In 9/:sati«9 of t3m w^i^'^ mwxetMd In 

fm ^b» «««•• BtAtJas Hifti mm of ^feHt t#«)piBHiir )»»^ imm^ pit l» 

««q|pa.iia«ia[|**9 ttiiM for mmmAmmt ms^t m» wmM» ii^aimt^m) 

»a%i«iia Bankt pi9-^ato«<Ni %fr ir«aMR r«gr M«N^ »i»»^ ^«lwv oLiiiwiii 
tliat « 'iiiiwiii ffi-ntiMi «>«a« 9m»9»vod «« t^t off ««it «li|^ ta ^t <mt S» 

h* mmX4 bt ^^UiA t» i^3i»iY« ih6 wmmf <^« i^ 8!iKl o«ir«3r tlwrM 

in 9e1»m^<^ Ibtc^t 9»ijli^ MlMNl tm &. '^%ii.%mm%i i^mt^ im^ t^titm» 
tmml$^ti m^ iitAtmmat -.Ama^ms |9@JI«37 %» Altt mm «r«M1^ m&% 3m 

tkol «4W«4altlMl IKrf«y 9MMI4 «l» flttid lt/% t«IO^W{ tik-.t «IM MMI 


9nm»d Wmsp^f^ m^ 'Urn m^ftm^ ^miM wm^ i^ t^ift 

m^%%itmm m^ ImtA tgr mm tt^tiieaih ^^^ if m^ ^ (A^M mmKPltUm 

m tAtk^^n ^'^i %)» msaaeimv m mgr p&sew ^^m m0i9 t^r 


'i^vtm» d«<t]r«« tiTi* ':.iefeni:«.nt '.•rnjiu*'! a. folswan 
pru.yfu «fi Hp^tml to thl» oourt« wriileh vms alloved «nd p«rf«ot;*d* 
but upon notion of th« appun®^, ld» "-. ?.?ifiok Bar'b«r, the uppswl 
ima aiKK>iaa«<i b«oau»*, ci» held l»$r thla court* it was lrit(»rloou« 
tory md net final, ?h<» oi»»» la r«p©irt«d in |i«rto«r v. tolman . 

176 II J ♦ API. las. 

Aftmr Xn9 o»»« urn* dismissed, and on July HZ, 1919, 

tk« d«f«Tad»iit 'tclmmt f ll«d ■■aitix tr*e m«t«tftX' a atateiiiient cf i'iiii 
acovunt, iA wiiioti ii« olaiJii«4 tj:i«i ther« vas (iu« to ^Uja on %txm 

original not« fcr |£d||5dc « 'l9»lftta«tt of 4'436t>.74i. Tnetentt&r 'am 

fll«d « writt«r. st«>t« ent #it^ U;« tt,»8t«r, 'by tfkicu it tmu <!•• 

olRrisd - 

•»**n.-»»«ln er \«r t« ••▼« «>Ei^«ns« luivi delay of a laag 
»eo anting and fer tue purpeaa ef tJi« |»rea«nt, aeccuniing ttRdttX* 
%b» coK*pleinisnt»« bill, Ui<ft d€«f enU»?5t i« willing to agree ftnd 
dp«»» UTewv agren tu«»t it, m«v to« cr.ns»i<i«r«d trA«t iie )*fi» recctvid 
th« auai of ?a2,»65,SB, ttdv»noed by itia to the perscnB r@f«rr«d 
tc in tfte eos8plf:in«,nt^» bill, toftrthor witu intereot on said 
aiBCunt, Ciisrlea > ^ »^c*i®f tl«liY«r«d te^ tiiia ii»f«n«i&nt a •««• 
end wart^sijisa or trust d«od upon lot twffilve, block two, Hyda 
laTk, Ccrk crunty, minoi», oftsw* r«pf erred tc »» thft fake 
.AV«tme prcx'^rty; tjttat a firat w©rtgftga upon tba aaid yr«j-a» 
««• «xiat©d in f».Yer cf 'Tba 3ffif-.r"S*'« Building #/ loan A9« 
ftoolAtion.* That. t)-i.ey«af tar 'The j'ccrl«*» BulKUis^ .' i.can 
Assicclftticn' fil»d » bill to fcrecTcoa tlj« a«id fiiortgaf;©, 
and tiiia defendant '!va« obliged tv and rtid pay the siiin cf 
f6ia7.l8 on %h9t USrd dav of 'cv«ibsp, 1806, in addition to 
tha loan ab&vt tt«Rti()n«d cut of tiin own funda^ to pri t«ot a 
• «»flend Aortgag^ ao eon-i^yi-ii tc him, TUat tiriis dafendant 
txitrcafter fcr«olc»ed tiie •econti aiortfiaije, ond bout^lit in tba 
S^raAls«s« and timt b« now o^mo and iaolda title tc the said 
praaiiiao, *•«* 

Aftaraarda a diafuta arotfa aa to %htf oocpe of tlMi 

raf«r«no«, wiiicU aa« by tii« aiaater refarrad to ta« eourt« 

Ybs^raupoB Ui* oourt antarad an order intcri^ratin^ tiae acoyo of 

tb« daoraa, in ^riiioh it iMa found; 

•♦Undar t*ja iaraa of th« aaid daoroe beratofera •»• 
t«rad by this court en tjna 11 th day of DaoasibAr, I9i.i>, it 
waa not the intention of tuis crutt to grant tc tho co&piain- 
ant an relief by way of opaolfio perferiaanoa, but only by 
aay of tua radtnptioii of tha seeuritiaa set out in tha or- 
igififtl fAod ajaandad bill, and alliigad tiier«in to liare been 
delivered by ceaploinant to dafer.<iant under oald eontraot 
of Iftttdj tbat tha oourt allowed ar. accc intinic witb regard 
tc all of the aaeuritiaa reo<»ived by the d«fen iant, a» se- 
curity for tha paywwt of a»id note, only fcr the purjosa 
of attoertainlng iriiethar or not th- aaid note had bean jaid 
with intoraat, That, inaaeouoh a» it now apjaare froa tha 




ttipulatlon of the dsfendant ?el»Kn, thnt h« has rftoeivvd th« 
princl};al, a« aforeaMi*^, with lnter«»»t» tii« ccsaiplainwnt ia 
not Btttitied to an nooourttint^ with reg«rii te oollat'^ral d«« 
liveredl tc tii« (i«f«ndnnt elmtin by any oUi«T peracn than 
ooffiplainnnt, or other tlsuui tliAt g«t up in the crif:3.nal and 
MB«n<l«d bill, and Rn«e«d tji«r«in to have t»«on delivered 
toy ecmrlnlnant tc the defendant under the contract cf 16fl6 
as further ocl lateral eftcurity fcr the pavaont of «sld 

Thereafter, en lay 2», 1915, upon a further contro- 
versy a« to the socpe ef the reference, the ocurt ent^^red an 
order - 

•#»«#«#ti3jit under the s^leadiaen in ihie •&••» the defendant 
Charli'S i, lacker im not eniitled to «n aceouKtinfc iUi re- 
garo to «rjy ctllattaral alleged tc iisiV'> been delivered by hi« 
or by anqr otlier j.erecn or j" •"»-"'■ t© iSRiU .iaesueJ A, TI>lBaa 
a» ccll«t«raX eeouraty fcr Aated on or aucui AUguat 

29tii, 1^91* for the aaii> of , , oet up in the ooMpIaia* 

ant* a original bill of oc«ipi,«.j.ui., 4<nci th<? court further find* 
that «aid dcfendarit ^acjcer ia not enti<Ll(?d to oreey*«xa{%in« 
the defer4.iftnt Tclaiaa in this caae with re^^r^ '^o any eucli 
eollat«^ral ».l)oj{«d tc have 'inttm delivered to aaid Tclamn aa 
aeeurity for the paym'.'nt cf aaid note by *iny per a en cr jer- 
aona other than ooajpiainemt Ida :,:, &;«cJt Bs»rb»r; «nd the Court 
further firida that the defendant l??cker haa no otner gr«(ster 
rif;ht to orcaa-exasalne the defendant Tolis^an, or to require 
any other aooountiniE tiian tiiat exiatm^ in the cooiplsiinant 
Ida E, t'«cl£ Barber under the forflB«»r order cf tiiie court, *• 

thereafter, on July 12, 1915, the defendant iaoker 
filed a oroaa-hill «vhiQh on fi«««a^«>]r 6, 1915, waa aesended, a 
danurrer hnving l>««n «u9t«^l»«d to it. in thia »i:5©ndad croaa- 
bill be aet up that the ax^ended bill of ccaiplaint «fta filed 
againat hlai ^ove»ber 3, lOod, whereby it wae alleged that aa 
•a individual and ageitt he had an intereat in the oollfti«ral 
th«retofcre delivered to ?olAAn aa aeeurit;/ for tite note of 
4a5«5w: .00, dat^d Att^uat ^9, 1&91; that he filed an answer. 
admitting the truth of aaid allegation*. Be alao aet up the 
decree of eoe^uber 11, 1>jl9, the aubaequent order or ttie court 
construing that decree as heretofore recited, the etipulntioo, 
BO>called, of Tolsaan that the debt waa p«ld, to which utipulation 
neitiier he nor the oonplaiaaat have ever consented; that con- 
teaiporaneously with the negotiation ef Aoeuat S1^, 1991, he, with 
Kobs-rta, jf^rnberg and iitodder, deposited with Tolnsan aa eollateml 
thereto a large muaber of notes. siortgAi?es and other property of 



great TAlue; that olmna theroAfivr rejroaented Ui«% Aome of 
Ui«»e projerti«» w«re endjarigfared by unaerlyiag liens; that 
Telauuft pret«nd«d the »«oarit,y w«» induff ioicmt, utu th^t fcr th» 
puT^oe« cf proteotiOf: vh« ai&^d* h«« iaoker* from X-imo tc tla« 
dellT<sr«d or deeded ftnd ecnv^ed to ?«>la&a udditional larg* 
M&ount of oollKteral; thAt turth&r large iMieunt» w«r« deposited 
with ?clBifi«} by himamltt 'rob^rto* Jerr)l»erg and iltodder; that th» 
•«ja« U«t not been returned or aeecunted for or tiitt prcae<»da 
thereof; tiist the right » of K^lxfrte and J'^rnVerg hsd been »•- 
• isni»d tn orofte»co%plain«jat; that Cook never (iepoeited any 
oollttteral; that tltodder hnt At, intf^r^et ^daicti aan be detf^rmtned 
only on nn aocountlng* en;i that cojeplain^znt and tri«ee are the 
only p«raone who new h«ive any rights, title to or int)!>ro8t in 
any of eaid ocllHteral or projpcrty Mihiet^ was de^orlb^d in exhil>it 
A« attaoh&d to the bill; that by deoree of the i>. a. court, 
Telsan hivd acquired a lien en all the aaeete cf the larK ^tienal 
j'ankt * schedule of whioh is )»et forth; tiuit t IsMin fcr^lcaaA 
the eaoie in Ux&i court, obtaining the decree freai which eroea* 
eoBiplainant was kbout to app<^1, ^en on aepteetber &« Ibi^, in 
ooneiiieration of the pending api oal and the deposit of further 
eol lateral ttpon the puysimx of Uie indfibtednees, h«^, telman, 
f remised hf? eoulil eur render »nl turn oyer to oross-qojuplainant 
all property of every kind and deacriptii»©n depoelted by .^oker. 
Poberte, Jernber* and ^tedder, ani that h9t Tolman, would a«- 
ccunt for th^aamt wiUi all iner«»«»flt; tHat a deserHipticn of 
this property ie solely within the knovyled^e of Tilman; that 
TolGian agreed he would, throu^ sale, acquire all the titl^ to 
the asset of the bank, and would pay th<* rrcoeede thereof te 

oross-oottvlc'^inant: tAat Tols^^n has failed to keep eaid promise; 
that Toloan wrongfully neglected to pay off underlying liens at 
protclaed. and allowed the collateral pledged to be Misted; that 
the orii^inal bill was filed r>eceaaier 4, I9cl» but the f^^ot of 

az a : 


tUft wtfmw^ nr tarn «f iglnAai wm^ tmm min^ "kmm ttHniAiMm^ V t0ii 

in mtmrni^am ^^% rusimm ham i^o«iif%s.'4500toQ@o«oo i» «js«»tt3 of ti» 

%» viiiitti IM i<N>lE tit2# ft» ^bm«t««* Imt «lii4li IMMW \mmt m%A «ni 

<iHtf<m>A «f %s ^i^ tUttt IMi 10 li«IA« i« «««««i^ thwptf QVi nn^ f#y 
«t)^jm «lii<^ iM eiiiXl kuldUj la ti^at for erosd eam^ailJiMttt* 

«rr«} l^u»t Sit iM«<Nmt »n|r 1M» ttgOnm* mA if ttm tafSm'h^&^mHm hm !)•«« 

§nifl!m& ant i9««lttl> SMMann^r Mritine ix9» ^^ etli^ y««iSQiii»« tiv^t 
tlw £ill^pk%l«n» «f Use CK'IM^ %tU nvjrn ldaodiw}iy$%«nt i»il^ Hm MttMcr 

«r the #rl«l»itl un «»«Bdttto& ^ mm f m txot* amt iiiiii«f^ imni« 

a««%Kr» ;ii««iiKi« tn&t ^am &mm MU 4Ad ii»t m% u> «r cOJUm* 

Mttteam gi»MnS]» %« tiMi orl^<ijial bU.1 cf ^M) ««2i«f iNi>iit^f uii«Ji<Mr Hw 

%• tiil« biU tma •i»i%nfta*d* KIM msm%s» Vmmti^m rvpmftmAt find* 
Ink mifi^ « 

ftf yj 


HidmAem CSksuriiMi ^# t««lBiar« m ntcnil vie* ft»«iiMd to 
oiiiifi«3r «*]p%aiiii prsmat^ (^erv^wa ts tMit UilipftiUiil 

ii««M» ttf m^m^ issm^im^ mmim^ mmm$mdi m& 4»tiimmti 

«f «4^iiti|0ip«l vprni w«M X^^m tit^t it i« ^itjii^m lam «»»t 

l«i»|fMw»«« ans «# ^ii» i>^aul iNiiaaM in a «<iftiUtt »»«• if 
|i^tis«39 1mA ^•m 99M9 am *i^t fUm mmU$mm% wm 
mMi^d u htm t^ mnwA 9i»«^ tf mp^ptrty Inirtil^ 
liftsralit, <3i8ififea >j»(i Aia%X^m$. %• IMW al «!«»# « « « Hm* 

%mlm9 ^^^ ^«»* ^ %^ ^'"^s^ aifctnOi INI «InkIihI It ^ii» 
«dUU»4 to * Um «pin ft$iM fr^^rtf. lioii«v«P* «r am mm 

— -^ - - - - ^nhmmm d«u«Mi, 

«r9»4ito€ idLtli i»l»«vMitt iK «ldte mm f»«i «lw 4lii Asgr «f 

^^«flMillfl»tir« X900, ::..t t^}i«IRK|it «r a^ POP laiinMi 44MR to IM0 
Mftt Mid ahduXd to fam^itMl «3«» wliai «U .j^ApMit «r 
tc-^'^.c jMd apiol«& «»to8«n«i4w itoAtt 1»y -'^iM -^Ine^ t^---^-'^ ^^^^ 
«ilih l»toiNi«% «t III far«i tlMi 4«toi» «r tai9 r«i^0t4to 
9««Mnto« d«Mti to to4« <i«kto| Vamt to* 6a$4 <l«^«xk«<ttii» 

fimiAUkesi «o * AiMii npiin muim propf riu 
«r ^m.3?*3L0« a«to to* twto ar Mm.'N 
toMr»«rto¥ tdld to f «teMi lir ^li^«S«« 
tow (iSi9iaA to ex'«dito^ to flu eto^lad 



pNpnr^ tTtmi mi% «^%k« t4tli |yii««>in»ii«« &% 0* 

%im i&miMm* tim msmKm% tm tins iiati^on in m^%imm is i3s»% Hit 

mdLj ti^^ ef ffi iNsrtar t* m^Am ^ssemm mnem lit 4#tf]^p%4 fmw 

dsf fttid^m^ la «3Pvia^ ittigf ^»£il^ iKr«»Ni ^ririawy nasi ^» 
eo^xri @h»3^ 4i8^ai« of th^i mam m in rfiVtmT eumm of 

It i» iix&m^ Vm.% ^ <*i!^^laf * i» mm^ aim pna/inf 

NM i& tills mmm 4tma »vi inm «« 9a«l»i>| thai iV&MVtf am 
ipNiiSWKt lift «i« hasm wm laiax««t 111 sti«t4i|»l»g t3w de«f9«» «atl 


«ni£ |&i!i4» tShln amjiet Im^ %mv^fmtm., i^i^m.% J«ri»^«tti» t« «iflMiirt@4» 

«kfiia^;i»ti^!i!»a« 'Sh^l i% «&3Ul 1» mmfomo^ w a^t^xwtoe l^n^ f»ot» tNifivt 


m tkilak i& <it&» «f4Ni Uatt tl0«s«« ^ijuril^4a^«is lli» Mil** 
taeiVit m^ oa^^i^iy rirnn and ^lM«iH&ii»ft ^Sm ^mtmlUm p^inelj^* V 
latm m^tmUMl vi^im 0t t2» woaetimt si^ pit in immm »r« 4«^«>» 
is ai.s«6t«a to IM talmi* «y« mmm^ insMmML U tte «;i0$o»UMi 

•r it. 





-litlisslt MUr 1lt«;^ i^kt tl)i«» «»& i^ & fiitei3L 4s«»ftfi ii» mii^li&liHitf Hir 

'4iilL<s tiMiiNi war %» liiwaM w tf i In mmm mamn iwnninlim t» 

m^ mmm» «iialJ|$r 4|»ti»,^.^iaii tlMW. ri?^a t3lil» «UMf»» a«iA '«• IflMWt* 
fiv« hi&d ilidU tttturt hm ^iB^&(Ujsitiim %» ifmfkmr m* 4«»«iii«* 

it i« mwNl IQT iitl>»13Mit tihat tins de«r«^ l» ^mfmmmm In 
•» fur ^ &t aiJN»«t»d ttott d«)ir«ttiiiii<3ait tolstsda t$ <3««d »«4d int ImiS.'«» 
In 1idA<M tiM»» la H;^ »$a^ waft 3Mi%) %«» «aS »x«nip»» lisi bl^ok fl£r««» 

tills 3P(»UUf K^iM gttwn <HI tlMt tl^»Q«3r tlM^i tii@ M31 wm mt» tm 

fmoOiOitiait wiU imt IN aSJLtiNNi t<o 9%&U liJU^ <s»^ ffini wiar i» tbt 

iftttMAi4 «n tiifti iprowiA* -^ «3eHMta^tlaA «f tl» l»iX3.« ^-t think* 


«ii 'I 


ti i» ffr nfti t pt «ju»» teiki» utat ^j«i» HU «<wia 29E9t 

^^«i( It «Sb&ir^S «n illf9«S3^tii«| @9Bl4 toSlij$f l» h«9)» iMMUl p«dUU 

is%eM& la %lm MUl ^1^ tat^iui* 

4» tli»i> «it t^ ir^s^ %$m ^Mm ««2lttt«t3m& f €tjc t^i<ii &- '• 

iMteii »i44 111 £t^« m yUw «r iiMill t*l»dlai.; --U^^Jt^ 

«it& VttfMMfMW to ii* «iit -»» iii^ not ^sfftiaftd !<» 4«i@r lliu>l. T$,sSim 

til* <)a*» »%a«o4 fok nm i^Ai mi m^^ ir ^^ p^&Aikmm» ti^ ""^^ 

Hit fuHftMRp ««ii%a«tti«ft «r «9i9«iiaiit Wm% mmS>fiimm% ^miSA mt 

ia«<i8tr« viM 4«i9M^l4i4 tiM <Ma,i«.t«ir6au (aife^wie^ mAm^iA«3iir$ 

% 6is«««rl »t»tK«wRit or tfe» lUHtl tnm^ hmm fm tim 3mfmm ^bit 
in m tuat an :i»t toitltv la ia*«ilt t«i lit mmf^rmA^ It «i9*«s*» ^v^i 


tlte^t «isi«li 9f iSb»m mm »t»U»u %& %im x^cei^* and Hm 4»^««Ain|« 
(other than Tolman) 

immLXM.Ms^mi§. ^^^ ^^* ^^^^* 

«a3L3ii mat ».%%milimtk t9 t^ ^(ii>itpalNt«ift imlt Hiti^i In UKr^eif tt» i«lMi 

iSam l4>3MiAal ^Klfwil flit«d «i mA tm ^sm %^m puj^fMiiMi 9^ p»y» 
thinic« ]wii» »» «iis^^&a.ii«M t« 11i» f «J9t« of tMa «riu»« «» f eftmd 

IS4 im» «dc^} ttttti iitei# ^"^^^ ^fe«** '■■'»f y* -"^^^■> 3i^ ^^* ^« 

i^pp«i:UEtt next aypM&i ^bm% tiM 9l*tt a f »if tM>|nAi«ilft iMt 
««e«]r^9 thi^it hid a«M «%»» l» f &«i« l»8dld. tBjft«r tlw fHJtag tf 


^hm4$sm taiM mffA.0 ^^ »&mKe m4 IoImmi Iwvi «•<» .' 

m 9«6rtiiiit« i3U«tt InUt ^asIbsx* Urn Imhoi iittl]»i1^|t;»1^l ti^ d^tmt rwr { 

tlmmtiiaw «at«mMI| VKm% Urn 4»mm $m ^^% iNtJsvmst mm ftiutl 


ft ef^wi %4I1 ^ «ii%SUii iiim tm m 4^9sm |» IkU» f opohp f «p «»jr i 

,^.^ — >.^„,^-— . i 

<««i ^#>w ^smte -^> ^^ MsMmM 4^ 3CU. .^, 30?j 

ant ^ f ^Uf m msx^Am^ 'p^im^ m%t tm rimii In imlq ] 

I909« «(&«» ittt«i3ra»(%»t«ifar« it «fta «i9«^i|r witlklji «Im» ptmof ^ Hit 

tm4 tAiXi^ tlMKnt torn «iart@tl» «i3eo>^!|^U«iJi» f«i«lbt m pweimmia^ 

^nit liiliik: mm ^tfH %« f «3U8d in tiiifi <i^t« ^iHsxivt ^^^.t iia« hm 
Mtm «Kis9ndQd« 8« t^ t« lii«iiiiiS«» m ^mm tmAf&s&vt^ f «r« »»tt>«ini 

^s#« i^i . iwi .jaJiiiliiiiiiiiinilii «^ ^^* ^ Mihi ti mmait 

Itat ^dlnle llw #0Mi3rt 4l>d net «tfr In <ssxi«^lll^;^ a^^.^' -^^'^ 

Itt m tarn ma 1i» «iia««e.%l«l» «f «l» ttii^gliua). ^iU 

md %» sMtti vs'c^Yljr i« «l*«(^ la«aa0iiiiMiEl lAHi Hb oU^g^Uim 
•f nw «f»Bii ^iu» i«ia^ iHit« t)# m^i tvwwi <Hii<»lwfaii«ti I* tte 

Or «te ittwtr iMMdt ia im» far cx^ tbti ^ll.ii^tt>r^;4 
desoKKlbta la liii0» iar«Mi UU lo wm% mf^ ^m» im tos&t a«s®p|U»4 
V ito 07«»» «MiMt«lB M 1^ taw «inislaii3l tiiU» It moM mem 

Mr,.***- $t*4 ' 



wmmttt/^ U m% ft««iKilft U lam m%^$ma hUl* m rim mmam 
«lkl» «i^#«i U ^^iif i& sa;!««« Bifrili #s»^ Mtii$ l»« 4&tt»2?«diift4 

im mm t^ WS19 m U 4» s»^%km to a43l -m^; p^rtift$s« %Q .« c« X» 

•r Hit ^?»ift« mKi0^imm%M ^-^iM wm 

4A&, fiiodi in mml&mim ^Bm mm tt mm V» m^w ^ tlwt i»mt% 
90 XU« 4;|»^* 4^1 p^irtMi it> i^ifiMi# *. 3>S .OX* M* 

•iNi^tofa bin mm fi3sA -mmisibm 4i t^^* 
ir«vilfi«<i tor tiw <»nMi« iHmpi-.4m«»t« "^r 

mftl&Unt t« $ut >4h «& iH»Uf)«» flOA «#%«3r Ito iws Urns sut i» 

a j^^.i^tll« aitituile temanlit mOtmilm* "^inimm^ 'h^ t-^AU€ U 
9»mT% his sU»^^ TW^»n ^i^ »^mm &U%»^ m «^ bUI tm 
t&ls tol^ in Uii^t Im Ud m% mm u»iU it mm 


. -av. 


sm49 4«ttliH3L tl9i97«r«f . w»ii tSumitfmm mtU^m %& uim ttuit if he ifiMmA 
t» tiKtii^iUiifti attitfi f s«t ( 3114 it mA%% hm^ ^mm flfpaanmt ^ h4» 

it iKks «te» tmf hM t« 9^e09iit Me mm «» a pMi9»r ^i^intca* t% 

rsvi^w of tidtt r9«i9nl« tli^t i% wtsiOd i:)« f ««lv m $%mt im taU.»v Hit 

'-%« tb&T&fmmt «aftii»^ U»» @0iii?t did a^t €>3^ in mi** 

t«4»iiig tl^ d<>Qttarr@ir t« tsti«$ oviaM i>i3tl« suii^ i3i 4«iariii^ tJiti iiMtlL<M 
if tim «*mm flmnKftiiiilniHin. fwt i»&m t« ?«3jri;i<» it« -m fin^ «k> 


162 . 26058 


Appcll ee, 

▼ 8. 

aAliUm A. TOLl^AR hi. •! . 

On A|»pe«l of JJAi^UK^t A, TOLi' 

Air-RAJ, raoit GIwOVilT COURT 

01? eooK cotmTY. 

219 i.A. 652 



i>«tltions;for rehearing have b««n filed in this east 
by the adrainiatrators of the rt^speetive estates of iiaioiuel A. 
Telman and Charlea ;. lacker. 

It is contended by appellant that the decision of 
the court is based upon "an erroneous aseumption of fact,** 
sod it is anid that the court apparently aaoumes that the eom- 
plainant, Ida K, h&ek Barber, conY*?y©d to Tolman an interest 
in the real estate which the decree directs shall be conveyed 
to her, 

Va did not so assume, but on the contrary follewad 
the findings of fact as stated in the deoree of 7iiOT«iber 3, 1909, 
and October I, 1916, Tiieae finaings are tc the effect that iAi«a 
I'aclcer conveyed the property to defendant 'colman the entire in* 
debtedness due to Tolaan on the original note had been paid; that 
the defendant had agreed with tue complainant that wheneTsr he 
was reimbursed for the money adTonceci he would return to com- 
plainant the securities held by him, i acker, the only party who 
would have any standing to question complainant's right in this 
reepeot, answers the bill, admitting its allegntiona both for 
himself and as agent of the shareholders of the lark Rational 
Bank. That answer and admission not only binds packer indiridually 



m^ntbaii eaii 

and aa ag«nt, but protvott 7olauua« »o Uiat he has no atanding to 

The findings of fnct hnva not xatherto boon contested 
by appellant; indeed*, as pointed out in the opinion, he did not 
eren abstract the «x«eptiens to the master *s report. 

It is also urged by appellant that lots 10 and 11 in 
Block 1 in J^dward & Dana's Addition to Irving lark vera part of 
the property which was sold to l/r. Tolmaxt at public sale in 1896 
under the order of the United states District Court, ?md that for 
the purchase price of this property rolman yias accounted in ths 
aeoount filed by hiai before the raaster, and that the sum «as ap- 
plied by Tolman on the indebtedness due from Slacker, Jernberg 
and others to hi(n. 

Appellant says: "in other words Tolisan purehassd 
this property and paid for the aai»e, and applied the purchase 
money on the indebtedness due hioi ««■«#,• A decree, therefore, 
that Tolman be now ooapelled to transfer the lots in question to 
lirs. Barber would result in this anosialeus position, viz •> that 
the indebtedness from lacker to Telsian ms paid in part by a sale 
of the lots in question by the federal District Court to loli&an, 
and having been thus paid, the property so sold to Tclffian and for 
the purchase of which he has accounted will be taken frosi hisi and 
retransf erred to a person who never had or claimed any interest 
therein, except under an alleged eontrsct in 1696, which was not 

The record as we understand it does net sustain this 
statement, but on the contrary the decree finds as a fact that 
the whole indebtedness to Tolman had been paid prior to ths con- 
firv>ation of the sale of assets of the >«rk Rational Bank to 

iL<i*fi »fUi 

Tolman under th« deor«« of the U. 3. District Court, 

Tlio potitionsfor rohoaring will be denied, 

Barnes, P. J,^ and Gridley, J,, concuro 

p'Xi/i>i3[00 t. ? , «• . i'^SiVi&Si 

150 - ii54G4 

A33CCIATKB yrUiI'\COti'ARY, / ) 
» oortoration» \ / ] 



JO!" P, 0»BHIKN, 


219 I.A. 653 


Tb« ttppellnnt* ««ioa«ii0 plaintiff in th« trial court, 
sued, alleging tbiat on HOTeir.bvr 6, 191b, he sold the defendant 
39,000 pounds of potatoes at $1,96 per hundred, leas frei<ght of 
^fZ,Z7; that the potatoes were to be delivert^d in a oar at Au- 
rora, Illinois; Uiftt these potatoes were delivered there about 
NOTOBiber 2o, 191h, sAd were inspected by the u. i». Departsiient of 
Agriculture, but that defendant refused to aeeept and pay for 
the same; that the oar of potatoes was then c#nsigned to tJtie 
nearest market for jaerehandise of that kind, and sold at a loss 
to plaintiff of #307,00, 

I'laintlff also set up in his statement of claia a 
written finding by the li, 3. Bureau of varkett that the potatoea 
would gr»de •U, rj, Ko, l;» and a letter frtaa the Bnforoe»ient 
Division of the U. f;. Pood Ada in i at ra tor, dated January 2f , 1919, 
notifying the defendant that the potatoes were *u, 3. orade »o, 
1," ae per agreement, and that defendant should be held responsi- 
ble for the loss. 

the affidavit of merits denied the defendant owedi 
any sun whatever, aoved to strike the exhibits set up in the 
statement of olaisi purportini$ to shew the aots and doings of the 
7oed Administration, denied the aaking of the contraot or the 
purchase of the potatoes as alli^ed, but set u;. tlwt he, the de« 
ftntiant, bought a oar of »yan«y King potatoes," eiiich were to 

^-* %j^ %.: 

1>e d«llTer«d «t Aurcr»; thitt th« plAlntiff t«n<l<?r«d a o»r of 
petAtoo* «t Auroral* whieh we>r« not •Fanoy King potatoes," but 
en the contrary ahewad blight fknd rot and oth«r defecta; that 
he, dafandant, aaa at all titB«a raady and williOK to taka 
"Fancy King ^etatoaa" aa a^aad, but plaintiff failed and ra- 
fuaad to dallvar auoh potatoes* 

The eaaa «»» tried by the court is^ituout a jury, 
and evidenoa aubxitted in beimlf of the reapeotiva partiaa. 
The finding was for the defendant and Jud«;nent <^s entered 

It aaiKns to be the oonfeentien of appellant tliat 
because the u. 3, Food Administration, thrco^i its DiTiaion of 
Eitforoemant, rendered a decision on January Z7 , 1919, holding 
that the oar of potatoes was of a certain grade Ko. 1; that 
defendant ahould have hean held to its original eontraet; that 
this amounts to **an award* as binding on the parties as a -nrittao 
contract, in this oonneetion we are eited to the u, '4 , v. The 
te nneylYania Goaf cc, , 266 Fad, 7o6, where the Talidity of the 
a, li. Food Administration Act waa upheld in a oaae brought there- 
under for profiteering. That oase tk»,B no application to the 
facts fiiioa sppear hers. Indeed the decision of the Food Ad- 
ministrator, which is in evidence, »t.atas, "wa interTwae ta 
prevent food fro«> spelling, incidentally wa try to preT«»nt ob- 
struction of transportation. Where the goods have actually 
been handled or have not been shipped, the foregoing reasons 
for our intervention do not exist, ^e are not a oollectiaB 
agency; the courts are the proper tribunals to settle disputes, **• 

The Rules of the Food Administraticn, dated Juno 
10, 1918, are In evideneo, but we find nothing in thorn or in tho 
Aet creating it which would indicate t^iat the Food Administration 

liAd »ny p*v«r to p»»« ©n or deteraine the right* of th« parti «■ 
to this 9uit. alnott it is eonoffded thnt both th« parties ar« 
and v«re reeidftnti of ilTlnola, th« imifcra a»l«ft Act, imrd't 
R«vi»«d yt«tut««» 1917, ohftpter 12r, 'irould be applicable, and 
acotion 4 of thut AOt would prertnt a recovery by plaintiff toe- 
causa the contract aued ea invclvad th« sale of merohandiaa of 
^6(0. 00 or upward*, and there waa no JB«BOrandu% of the transac- 
tion as required by that section. This defense Is argued but 
was not set up In the affidavit of merits. 

However, the finding of tiiie trial court, «$:iioh 
saw the witneases and heard their testir^ony both as to the 
terae of the contract and the quality of the potntoee tendered, 
was In flavor of the defendant, '-^m have e:x»uBined the evidence 
and we think it 8us1.Ains the finding of the ccurt. The Jud^ent 
will therefore be affirmed. 

Barnes, J, J», and cridlev, j,, concur. 


%66 • ^9430 

mnY K. c^^^BUJt* tor har mx% 


mmjo, mm 
coojs: Qwmt. 

I.A. 653 

m. jTssixr^ KAXcsieYf lioureMKB tim mtmm m wi omsm* 

«n t3w 9tl& dajT 0^ i<^yt|92sty X9X7« the d«^eiid«mt nas «iipi@ed la tfcw 
i9e ereoM liU3iiMfi«» mA «»»• at thut tl»e, driving e«rtAi]i iMcrwis 
«id » WMigQii ia ft sm^therlj ctir«etlon» lia tJier alley 1»«tifMMii llRKlirwi* 
xmwK» and au^fto »ir«iaae» in ttad City kkT c>a«^; tlui^t plaintiff 
WGta dtandiag ]i»«ar & uste «d4 absent to th» a3LX«y« iit Urn w^eap of tb« 
panmiim» Immmi ua 453fl Hdmisjra mvam^ t^t a osrt&in other hmeu» 
•nd «»smt« tt^d in the &&X%'rmrt ^ f ^tiitt w«m» ataiKliag nAiir te tiMi 
iikto; tli^t d4if «{tdast f siiXod to ped'igfftt its ^ty to driira tlirougb 
•aid (iXley witli duo eare^ lut eareltta^sly said »(i^i|p»ntiy «aa»fitd» 
oi^erated »nd oontrQllod eMaid h«rii#« and va^gm^ &9 tli»t said wiami 
eo^idQd with 0aid otimty mtiptn* and tli« hmtm t%tta<dl3«d te t2M 
fwtit «»0Mi was tJiroHKi ««{ftla0t the «»t«, #ii«ai eeni^t th« imnd if 
yiaintiff « in^urinij hor* 

%lw ditf«ad«ttt filod tite pX«a ef thu gonerjai iswt* end 
•P««ia3l pi««s« «lii«h •9«oial pX^um vrnx*, li»weY«r» ntftervtord wiili^ 
drswa, tht «flM« lias tried 1»y a 3u3*y« which f ottitd for plAintifiT 
ia tte Stat of fSSOO, XIk» court required a roalttltur of $1500, 


W6M mo Httgli^iwm aamm «» tin: i>«!irt «cr ^mgm&mitt «^ b» tviiiutMW 
i« <pe«W««siv«» ?&«sJj|tlff @i tllii» %i»i df tuts »ec4d«^iit -«ms » t^iiM 

dOfKurritdy rem i^rlh and »<»at£i.» mA warn e^mt% ei2tt««m f«#t w44fti 

r?aii «8ts4ii i»t09d a iitti« l««s ^isi» t^ fttitt fr^a ^t»@ ir««ar fnam 
9t plain tiff* a h«BWt #ii<^ ml$&iiam^ t^ nX'h»'sr* '^t3m imtm toA 
fimXt ura^fm w»re imgn^aA smtli* sand« a^smli^ p«irrell«3, %o t&» 

doer «f $; ftmt <H» i%9ift40O yuad* 

f )£» di?it«3r «f tli@ f suit im«^ t«8t|jried «3«tit lift hmahk 

ftOd £t«^9«4 t9 «mt«lli it* 1»mt {>^ It rtttec;^ lh« fimit ivstgon* tJie 
fmit i^'3g;«:e«i riid h«r9« %tt<&<iito4 to it weie^ «ri«aeidiag; etiXl'S tiAs^t 
tiie hind «dM!«l of tbt t«« em&m «m{E<m »t3»t«lc th« fyoiit «iiiM»3. idt 
tli@ fmit ia«e«ii« mid tlunm tlM» Iiftr9« i^ «gitlauit tins i^t«; tii^t 
tlw x«n shaft of !iis «R«on wm ^m^nm^ tmA tte Ittl^ af tlie a«f t 
fr«i2t «lifiQl 4e«it«d* 

fhi» tttistlMSiiy' ie «<Hnp«lMr«3^to4 ^ mat «f «mi BtOdwiap 
a i«2iii^«iiA» t-ttsti.fiM th»t Ha me ^iag ws^rtai in tbo aii«ar» 
Stt^iiBB «^ J^aMaHMehMur; ts&sii tJso fruit vsnicm w» etsiiKliii^ s^tillt 
fAwi a«f«)iHt«ttt*B ufanim r«ix l»t» it» tlsirci'tfins; tint Imara* «#ftt»«t 



Ite &Mlt« tlB^ iiiirm^mti:*»v ^ pl^l^tiff testified ttte-it at t^ 
ilw «f ta»- o.««?44«»t «feft w.e sit«i«liixtj rl^t »«?«Lr Him kftt«bea 

tM» rA#L^ g^i» vf«F, tii«ii'-5aUr.j| ai»?,t r^s^tam the wlt«»«» g*t jJjRtsR 
tlw stc^e-, pliidBtUT hitd 3»rJa?4 Her nif«M m%i tjEsja-t tlw piitiRtirf 

art«3f He i^t }^sim* Sbu tjw lastj €?f ta^s? .frtctt m,f!?3R lilt tlw» hMM 

yiis;^' ia<4 am, «w«£v iridic ^t-^f. him &t l;h«s t«»»» %s^t 1^ »«» im« s»t 
tt»<UUi4 £« A witqHisa* flftsf «»» his sAam/km a«i6maittt4 f«3r« 

»tt«a<ubis si«yfti«isii t^eurin^ tJ^t i^ liM m im^ Xt^m9n,im* tl^t 
Ibmd; %\ni.% tK if«««<i lit ^ «• Mft«li «« P«#«il9tl«» »nej. i^piiiii^ tt 

«iiti3f« ptiXu Sim. ltt^?»tsit «^ «3^« ^^ %^v <^ 1^ «QU^« mmiI 
?i«fl flSflVirai that plflkisilff «%» Wideir '<»i» o^^^r^ ?rm -"^rnxnt MXkUl 

U»mm tpMtm^ a.% Its Immi ttet^t tlaiy« wat* a ^Uisr tw» toHl a ludf 
in^ ••Mr nuiaiiig smhtmhi ISm fv^mt «f tlit yi#it ii)d«x f inasr dMi 
to tht i^tOM «f tlMi hamdt ^h/it if mm tri«S to straMiteii tlM 

M mm. ^m^pn. ^nas j^»l«l i^ m». htm vm^of^ ^^^ liMi «iniaQiti«i 

m niirar «r *^k« r^9i i^% mmm it »» ««i«a«tiiteii «r 
i/mmm^ «ai^tetf| t^adlnfii t» |»rix»miii Vm prnj^ m Klilitit lilHt 


fa m* m^* u$$ li^jmMA- 


>, j?* ,?♦, {SiKfet iif^^i^iP,, $mp ^mufit^^ 

18? • m442 

2l9l.i^' 653 

Mm mmitm m^msn msa:mms> wm GBmtm m rm eoBRt • 

litiiriilar d«er«»cl«at «»QAagfii^ ^m pX&iMtitt for on* ymat »a mmM$»v 
prior t» the t«nitijia%iM «f tli» o&j^trit«t« 

«Mc<>imt Af iri&iea^ it la qIaIihNI Mh dtMOiisurigA wmb not «r«Bgl^« 
tl» «&•« was tried liy ^ Jury* #ii«h l3?r«4#it in a Twrditft far 
jpXftiaiif f in tl3« mm of 99^*$$^ ^ 'wiui^ tlw ««nsrt e»tQir«4 
IttAgiKiit* a&il«i»i for « »tw tarial and in nrroof of 4uS«»i«S 
IsuiTltig ^§0n tinrdryttlods 

it io «ani«»tly oaniimdUid ^sat tbtvt wmi ori'Or i» tbo 
inotvuoafinM isl-vfta ^ thai «mrt in vriiiagf ^t am ISm nlMitahurt 
«f ^M roewNl f S.118 W td«m at ^ham r«<i«est «uiy «n« of tte 
iaatructioiit mup ^vini««« ^j^* yaal^io to giYo thio point ooe^ 

ICloi o«ntriu3i wsus oxoottlad SbutA i* X91t* i^ its toxow 
Wm pl«liitiff a^poll««} ono OHVftO!y«d lor «sppoIXaBt for mm yoor 

r o 

Ml ft mma^v of itn tmmim d«f«urtei»t at tlit mm or ^0 pey 
ntmth for Marofa« April tfad Ifaar* 3.017 ^ smd $IW f«v MMHth tlMf«» 
af t«r» l»iiiafiRliXa on tlmr 1.5t2i md Xm% d(t^ of •oboh n^th* ctad in 
addition* i>lai»tiff mis to re(^iv« s^ eonnioition of X%t of tbo 
a®t profits x^aiiaod fron ^^ooloii imd ^olii^ tra&e. Haintiff 

agroftd to doiroto him eatiro tiao and efforts to waeli de9ortiM»nt« 


aCMl^uoo OTor;^ effort in tSw proat^tiim lutd oiioceaiiftt3l oonduot of 
One 0^X219 • Ho WM dio^lMTsod oa 3vam 1$» i917* £*rior theiroto 
m SvamB 12. Hi* ho Inroo^t «iit ois&iaot «|ipolXont for mam oloiaod 
to bo mxe on aalary* «»d tbo mm oiaiawd ona thoroaftor paid* 

Tbo protsidottt and oaohior of the Bank t«atifio4 th^it 
they ro|»0£itod|,y took $«tmmx to taole for hio absence fron Xim 
Bflsdc* ea^ wMX«$ ^eamor on relttttalt denied thio imo tnato» 3m did 
not 4,ta^ iii» tostiaMQT of tho oaohior to tlio offeot tliat «lwn hOt 
tho Cashier » toXd Ititt ltt$ would haw to ririeo out a report otating 
tdutt peoplo h9 had »oon» iio roplied that im didnH Imto to do 
that* that it iras »o% ctaJLlod for in tho omttraet* 

Tb» proeidotttt oaahior and othor <»si^oyoo3 of tho Bank 

goiro ovid@noo toadiag to t^lami that Jooaor a'teoontod hiaiaolf froa 

his «erk» and nogloetod it to a great oxtont* Tho court, over 

tin ohiootion of the d9fonA«»t» ad]»itt«d in ovidanoo th« filoo 

In tho prior oiiiit hetwoon tho nmm pturtios, whitih ouit had hoen 

•ottloa. th&m fiX&n included Urn Bt«^»iat of olaim* mxamoM 

md rooortl shoott and tho otatenunt of elaiji vtem road in evidonot 

to tho 4ury« and a Motion by d^jf a»d«int to strilegr out tho tumm^ 

oae donied 1^ the eourt* WO aro not aiao to understand mi alMt 

thoory thio tJYldonoo wao adalttod or alXotiod to staad* XrvoipootiTO 

of other ©rrora allogod* we thi^ik thri orror aaaignodt t*»t thO 

•«urt ndiRittod inpro£>or oTidonco im hehalf ^ appolloa> nttot bo 

•aatftined. The judAgwnt will ho roiwrood and tho ceuso roaauidod. 
»nes,P,j,,and Gridley,j77concure WOSfSBJBBm AID BaOWBISO. 



• 3S442 

^m^mm ^^'^mm^f 



ties mjm t^mmtm. Am 

JSfmm mm 


^ mieme^ 



Mm mmm msimtift^ ■mMimem wm mmwsg/m ma em»^ 

mm ««f«MiNi iMit t^ ji^ ija^ ^atumit m wm§.^ mm 

Hm «a«« mte tr|*4 wi ^ts^t i«ii«Sit Urmi^^ ia » TWititt f cap 
i»I«laUft In t»i« ^«r mm^m^ m ^«m,m tip ft«wrt mmm€ 

to"t3m«i^ito ali«« lor t}i» «a»rt'iii vritlnti, mtt oi «tii wimmma^ 

•f tti®/#tt««p«5 f mUU t<!^- «iitw «t tidMe v»<|yMl«t «l«r «•» ^ tlat 


flw ««tttv«MBt uMa mmm^ii& s^idi ),» I9:it« % %%m %mmB 


m ft Mnafftr ^f its twmim 4i«^«urisnia[it at «1mi mm «f ISO yvr 
nwmifox »a3p«}i, A^rU and ISMy* 3.9179 ima |!|0I» ft^ m«th tlMiv* 
drt«r» p«;sr^l«» 08 tli& 15th and ituit «lii|» oaf tfi&tik mm%h, mvi In 

i«d t« 4<»v»t« lil» (ait&»« tint «j[id 9fftiae%n %« midb <iii9iur1an»itt 

tim »iMt« fti 1KM dilialbftflBtMS on ^bm lOp 1917* Ft'ior tlMVttt* 
«n y^w» 1X^9 he lircnii^ mii% ttaieJtimt vffpmXSM&t i^jt mm clalMNt 

t» Iw d»« OR muXaaey^ maA %3m mm eXai/md was WmmtsSt&r p»%&* 

Bcmk* tmA wb&l« ymm»r aa r«ilutt«3L« denied tiiia i«u» tsiMi* Iw did 
not d«i^ t2M t««tiMHQr tf tHo d^uithi^jf ia th« eff«oi tj^t laiMn b9» 
tlM» eajthisr^ told hia 3io would hasm t<» i^'fiMe^ mtt a ii*e|)«3rt •toting 
4Mti 9««fl« IMI liad MMEDf li» v«pli&d that be didziH h«v« to do 
tli&t« tltAt it ««M» ttol oftUod £'er In tj^ ^(Sttraet* 

Wm 9roiii4«iit* oiaitliior und oiOMKr opwiiy^a of «Imi BmiAc 
0Kf« «vid0no« teiiidiaa to Ohow titai Stmmv olNtontod iiiiwolf frOM 
bis noork* ffi»d ao^eeted it to tt grsat osKtent. Vk0 ocxu't, ov«r 
tii6 oTa^aotiMn of tbo d4i9f«ndant« a«NLit«d in ovidoaeo th«$ filoo 
ia ih& prior 0ttit %o%«Hm tSio 9mm pixe^ma^ wMOh suit had ymnn 
m%%l&(U tt»m ftXou ii»^^4adad tHo ot^iAoiMni of olala* okumnw 
m& vmmmni abiiet* «iid tlM siatommt of olaJai m« voikd in ^ide»oo 
to t>£@ Jvtjry, siM a notion Vjr dofdadant to otrite oat tha &i!J2a»» 
WM doKiod 1^ tise ecurt* ^ «m aot aW&o to uadnrstaiid on Shot 
tlMory thia airidonoo sa.9 jsitMlitod osr alloiiod to stsoiA* ZnooyootMni 
Of other errors allsgodt .^ thirik tJiMt &msat luisignsdt that thi 
eourt sdmittod Mmig^ntfrnv eridoneo >m '^hnlf of appoUos* m«t Iw 

mstoiiwd* thm jui^pMsiit will 1»« vevsr^wd aiid tb» oottoo rowiuwts d, 

Barnes, P.J. , and Gridley, J,, concur. IBffKlttBD ifll> IMMBliB* 


347 - assoi 

II* Km OLD, 

A|IP«XJ.4M} § 


3. X. KAODUOI* tarakzig 

Ayyaal from 
Wmi«l9»l Court 

219 I.A. 653 

m* jnraTzc;^ XAf 

.o^xvmK^ Tm mmxm m tm (mm* 

wAmigmm «f «tee Fl«ijur city OmmmnUsl Zvon company in Hi is 

and daliv«r«(i tqr tlui Xnm c««|i{adai3r at tl»i priee 9f ^JS30t on 
^leh $500 had )MB«n paid, «ad a&kinii ju<lgia»iit for tbe 1teX«M«« 

i)«feiidaat f iiGd liis affidavit df nerits ia ohieai ho 
alleged ]u» kad a good 4ef«na« to tlie t^iolJi of p3laintift*s i«MMl&t 
Imt furthttrt tim% plaintiff cmtXd not ]Baiiiit«iB hits aotioii h^em^m 
Um Flour c^ity Ornaiaeiit&l Iron Conpaa;/ mui »t ibe tint of the pur* 
ported asQigjsnaiat of its i^aim to tlie plaintiff « a foMign eor* 
por^xiion, doizig leusiitooft wltlsXn Xllinoi^t v^^ithmit tiisia^ lic&naod 
so to do; that the eontr&ot Iwtween i3a/s oaid Xr<Hfi OoHpEUiar aflt 
defoftdaat «a» TOid and ttiii«f<^«««ll&0« 

Thi pl&intiff haTiag filed m addition^^ iltiiiWit 

BOttittg up tliat h« aociuirea title to tiie aocmmt on jraaaaafy 18 » 

1917, Isgr aasignia«?nt in writingt tlM» defondoat filed an anonded 

affid».vit of awrits, in %f ic^, in addition to tlio facte alleged 

in Xibs original aflidairit, TM fur^mr allege^ 

ofluit the transaction, ^ii(^ ie tSua l}aeie of this eaaeo 
was not inter* state t^caeKtroe, 1m t was Insineoa transaoted 
within the itate of Illinoia, and th.:it fron JUly ';3rd, 1014 
to January 9th. 1015, the Flour 'Jity Omenental Iron 
CiMipany «aa doing 'iAxaiaam trithin Illinoia, nhicdi 
^sineae waa not inter-atate oonm&roe or econeroo lM9tvo«i 
Btatoe of the Onited statoo.f 

fiKi't*': ' 




Vm mmm w&s triad l»y tim eoort vlt&«ut a ^ry. It 
was sstipalated ti^t fXjainUff *s a93i«:n0r, ^ms* at tho tins tf thd 
eetttracrt in qjtiestidi^ a eor^ratlon orgeialasGdc axistiac; stxnA doing 
tnifiin :a» und^^r tlio Ism of UincM»»«t8.« and h ia aot filed Ito artleXoe 
of ijaee^po3rati«Dt audi m)« B9t ileonawKl to do IwiBizieQs in XllinoiSt 
}?Ad Va.u% gmy d«f«nt9« t^-it ^irculd }mye Imtm «irall«fcbX0 a^gM^nst tfaM 
flour City Om^saental Iron ?or!te» tli© ori^iiua o^mor of tii» claia 
mod oa» would %» avallitbl* agaiiist am plaintiff, 

'thit 0Yid«»e<i vS^ymA tJukt tto nooeUi £ue>d &0r(^Kaadise for 
the prioe 9f vAkicdi suit was b3*cug}it»wer« oositruotGd for la^ defendant 
ia Caie@€:o, Ally 24« 1914; tltiat tiv» eulDJoet atatter tbero^ im» 
eixtooa broajt «»$•» of a oertain dosi^^ ndii^ were to be fumii^tMd 
?• 0«' B« OilcMaga* at tlic ^rioe of |7& Qudx^ f!be cTideaoo^ ^ thlxik* 
oenelu^ivoly oatatolialiody iihat tit® contraot mm Mtido in Chiosigtty 
Illinois » and that an alleged in the ^^fid^icrit of laoritst ^^ J^lmCr 
City Osnaaaeatal Iron ^^ggpany from «Tul^ :5| 1914« to January 9» 
19159 snM doing lKi»ino@8 idlthin the at«te of Illinois • 

The trial court f ouwl &a faoto that eaid Iron ' dapaay vao 
a forsign coz-por^iiiion* orn^suKiaed under the twtm 9i the ^>ta||t «f 
MinneootAt for the tr«jieaoti«!i of hua^ioefts for profits that it iwa 
not authorized or liccsaaod to do ^dinosa la the ^t«to of XUinoie; 
th^it it had not iMen adsiitted into the itate of Xlliaoie for the 
par^oee Of tysHMacting hti.'iiinotsij or exoroiain^i its aorporate powers 
or franchioee; th«tt the aeoretary of the atate of Illinois h»d not 
ismiod a eertifiod eopy of the td&arter of ssdd oorporation or a 
oertifieate of authority for aatd oorporation t© de 1iuain»»B in 

But the trial o^mrt x'^fueed to hold facte* aa ro9S«Bted» 
hy dofendant, that the ocntraot in >iaoation vaa aadft mui exaeutod 
in tiha 3tate of lllinoin{ th»t it waa to \n -^Ttwrm^ ixi the 


otate 9£ IXlinei^i tlint it w^ not ii»lw»9tattt oowaorev; th&t 
tlM smtters aBd thiags dent under smid ctmtaraot ««r« nttt latexw 
atat® easHaerodf ai}4 aa&6 a fi&dln^ for tbtt pX^atlfl, «jid 
caterod JadipM^nt fof Xhe smmmt olaimsd* 

XT the trao^ii^ctien wu» one ia lut^r-etnie ^mrnvtm^ 

Vm fin&ixm and Jud«pgs«ttt of the o«uPi ims oorreot» .^t "s^ter^ y. 
Picture iTrsrSBiQ .j<^%> 251 111. 610. If tbe oontVi^iot iMiro stted on 
in Ite vx^'^lo^CHis oant^)^l@t«d th9 mmssfaotiu^ vd.tbinat the ::its&t« 
ftf ths goedft eontraoted for, and the ohipuect of the goods frmt 
tlin atate «f mxmeL^eta into tlie Jtate of IlXinoiUf th«a the 
trfiaaaetiftn au^^t be held to hme ^men en^ im i£it«r»ata.tft cennerfMi* 

■^Plfmdifpt^ ;-!09 111. ;i]^. 340, 

<« think the 1^ttz*dtta «f e9t£ii>l3a.i!3hixi^ the affiraativ* 
d«feiime M»t up liy tlifi t^u'f idaTit or Mttrita* asi stiMiiided^ wao en the 
defetidaaty aad ih«^t 1^ t^mrt mm therefortt ^uutifi^d in i'todias 
that thA MUftgatAOB of the affidacfit that the traasftction w&a not 
in inter* fttaie GOtaoaeroot had not iMian ostiibliflthed* 3?elta Btut Co. 

lo evidi&aoe o^ tmy othex* disfooM was offoyod eond Itei 
^udj^^ttt <sill ti\si:e€if<i£i6 'be affimed* 

BanM8» P. jr., and arldley» J.t ofm^or* 

:i04 • 2S3&7 

Vlt. y. QB&M, 

J?l«lntiff in 3Srr©r 

MABi: LSVY A8X> AHlifim 0. 
M*|^iurtn«rft tradlni; at 
LSVY A8i^ BitOlH iiS &nti 
SimCPXAV »)7BL Aif^ Hp:i 
CC^KIPAinf, a oorporiiUon» 

D»fen<|Rnt# in Krror. 



219 i.A. 653 

MH, Bmsimna justice TAH^OB 4«liyer<'d thm 
opinion %f the eourt, 

Ob MMjT 83 • 1916 • th« plaintiff brought suit 
agalntt th« d*f«iiciant0 for the return of tho sua of ^33.33 
ivhlel-t it ims «Xaiai«d >iy hia he hRd paid ao tli« first au»ath^ 
r«at for oertain pronioos. Xho eause was triod vithout a 
Jury and on J'uly X9, i9X6» Judgment vaa •nt«red fiadinc 
tiM iasuos ai^inat th« plaintiff. 

Zn him otatonant of olaia tha plaintiff tot tiy 
that en April 12 , 1915 « h« paid to th« d«fen<irmts» i^rk 
hmry Broth«ra, |333«3S to apply aa thu firot aeatho ront 
for a oertain «tor«« boing the ground floor of Ho. 17 
South JDoarlwm atroet. n^iioh vaa to he used V ^^i* >^* • 
■OTing pieturo theatre; that at the tisM ho wao not adriaod 
that it vouid he unlairful under the city ordinanofc; to con* 
duot a noTiag picture theatre upon thOB« prenieee; that 
the defendanta did leaov of that faot; that ha paid the 
Money relying upon the right to use and enjoy the preaioea 
for a moriag pioture theatre; that at the tiae of the pay« 

Bftat of th« noncy th« s«mioe^ ^rop«aa Hotel and Heetaurant 
Comptuny ooaupied thtt pr^saises rI>6T« the flr«t floor of tho 
•tore ftt J40. IT i^uth B^ avibom Street ar and for a hotel with 
Bleei»lag roo»8 and apartmente; \h&t it wao proTlded In an 
ordinandi of the Oity of Chioa^o (Claas 4o, Geo. 930 to 332) 
that *H(j roea or hall uoed for the purposes of Olaoo 4o here* 
after ho Installed underneath anjr llTing or sleeping rooms* ** 
Xhat the defendants knowing that a moTing pieture theatre 
was unlawful in that plaoe nad knowing a lease th«»reafter of 
the pr<Mioeo would he illegal, th« plaintiff, relying upon 
the pronisos and aosuranees of the defendant, paid to than 
the SUM of #i3S,39; that th» plaintiff suhsequent to tho 
execution and delirery to him hy the defendants on April 1S» 
1919, of the reoeipt for #833, 39, and before an aetual 
leaao was oxeouted and dellvere<l to them notified the defend* 
ants that the ueo of the premises for a moving pietjure theatre 
was prohihited hy the eiV ordinaaees and dsmanded that the 
defendants return to him the |933*33; that the d«nand «aa 
mot oMvlied with* 

On Juno 9, 1916, the defendants fUed an affidavit 
of merits stating that %ym plaintiff on April 12, 1919, paid 
to Mark L«Ty and Brothers, the sun of ^99* 33 for the first 
month's rent of the premises in question, and that tho pro* 
position to leaao, as set forth in the reoeipt of April 18, 
1915, was ao OOP ted by the Saratoga European Betel and Restaia- 
rant Oompanyj that at the time of the entry into the lease 
that 90Bg;>any occupied tho floors and prmnlses of tho build- 
ing ahOTo the ground floor and conduoted therein a hotel ooa* 
eisting of living and sleeping apartments; that the plaintiff, 
before he entered into the agreement, was fully informed and 
oaq^ressly advised by Mark Levy, one of the defendanto, on be- 

haXf of the SftX«t«8» ]Surop«an }ktt«l nnd Ht^etaununi 0». , itet 
tlw^r« va« an artlinanef^ prohibitiac acTiag plotur« halle uadar* 
n^ath liTing or slaapins roona; imd tliat the room knami a« 17 
Horth j[}ear)N»rn aWaot tma under liTlag and alaapiac quartera; 
that th« plaintiff Infomad Jtai^ hm^ thgut ha hFfd kno-«rl«dga 
•f thoae faetst lM»th of th« ordinance and the condition of 
the prenlaes, and otated that his arehttaot and eontrsiotor 
aould ao arraai^a the property that a Iloenise or penal t oould 
ba obtained; that thei plaintiff being fully advised aa to the 
nsittera aet forth persuaded and Indueed aald d<^fendante to 
enter into thie leaaa; that said defendants relying on the 
ability of the plaintiff to carry out his plans so as to 
render said preaULses eapable of being used for the purpose 
intended in a lawful and legal nanaer entered Into said leaaa; 
that by reason thereof the defendants were prerented froa sa« 
curing and obtaining other tenants until after the ea^irsi- 
tion of a portion of the firet aonth of the lei^se and by 
reason of th^^ .failure of the plaintiff to deposit the sun 
of $10,0CC«0O aa proTlded for In said leasa on or before 
April 22, 1915 • the said sum of $ vaa ferfeltad to the 
defendants as oredited in liquidated damages for a failure af 
the plaintiff to perfens said agroanent on hie part. 

fluraa witnasaaa wfrm oalled: Ita. J. Crook, plain* 
tiff, Margaret Jaoobs and JJaniel S. MulToy. There was offered 
in aridence the reaeipt vhioh was giren to the plaintiff by the 
defendants* UmA Xaiyy and Brothers, which is as follows: 

*R«aalTed of Willian J. Crook, eheok for 1839.33 
an the Claiiweed Trust ik Sarlnga Bank, payable to our 
•rdar, to apply aa the first son the rent of the term 
aa proTlded for in the leaae, which I imrm signed of 
even data herewith for the store known as Xo, 16 S. 
Oaarbom Street, to be uBe<3. as a Mowing Vieture theater. 

to b« r«fim4<Ml if th« proposition is re^eeted 1^ 
th« Bars toga Suropcem Hoi«l & Keatfturant Conptuoiy, 
or mjf referenoes are not found satisfactory. 

It is axpresflily agreed \.ii&l in the «vent oaitf 
laafM) is «e««9te4 l»y the ovm^rs and I f»il to deposit 
th« 0tt« of #10,0CC«C0, as proTid«d for in eaid Itase, 
on or b«for« April 2Snd, 1915, that said sum of 
1833* 53 shall be forfeitod to us a« agr««d and liqui- 
datad daaagss (and em t as a panalty) for agr failure 
to perform said agreetaent en ay part« thc^^eby waiT* 
ia£ all olaima of erery kind and nature against us» 
the lessors and the presdsea** 

Tltere was also offered a eopy of the lease dat«4l 
i|Kril,12, 1915, and signed Saratoga Buropean Bstal k Best. 
CM»« « M, Sebree, Pros. W»« J, Crookse« 

TlMi lease provided for a tens beginning Majr 1« 
I916, »nd ending October SO. 198&. for a total rental ef 
$ payable in installaents of $a3S*33 on the 

first day ef eaoh oonth* said premises to be used as a 
msTing pieture th«stre and for m ether tise and purpose, 
tkere was also effer«4 in evidenoe a "rider* to the lease 
vhieh proTideA, asMmg other things* that the lessee before 
April 88, 19l9« and prior to th« making of any eontraot for 
the remodeling ef the premises nake a deposit vith some 
reeponsible bank in Ghieage satiefaotery to the leec'ors fer 
the eum of #lo,000.00$ that that sum of $10, COO. 00 shall 
be iMld, applied and disposed of bgr said bank holding said 
deposit as follows: 

"Until the lessee shal furnish let^feore vith 
building set of plane and speoi float ions for the 
resMideling of enid premises whioh sh«iia have the 
staap and approwal of the yarious departraents 
in the Cit>' of ahioags eerert^d by the Tsirlous 
•rdinaaoea eOTeriag sueh r«Diodeling and iaqrrove* 
ments. * 

Xt is further prorided in th« "rider" that said 
lessee will at his own expense oomply with all ordinanees 
in maJlng all said al teriltioBs , ehfing e or iaqprotrements. 

• 5» 

It is th* «Yi4(»ae(» of t}t« plaintiff that h* 9am 
Jbutk L«T)r April IS, 191S, in ref«reno« to an a4T«rUa«BMBt 
that appcarad in the ^rlVunaj tJDat he ap9lt« to bim in rogazil 
to renting Bo. 17 South Searbem otroot and aoin^* it for a 
noYing pieturo ahov; that Lot/ oaid he. Oroide t itevln have 
to 8«e UlosJaoo^a who wae a«er«tMi>ry and nanagor of thf 
Saratoga Hotol; that ho oubsoquentl/ «a« Mioo Jaeolitai that 
th« sseMDrandum and loaeo which verft offered in OTldenoe 
irore signed on A.pril 12, 1915* and that on the sane day he 
paid tl» ^833.33; that ^fore ho slgaod the lease JUtvjr told 
him that a Mr, MulToy h&d }f€m to see MisE^aoelse and informed 
her that a permit for the thSNutre oo ;ld be gotten and that 
the pla<w oould he used as a thaatre, Thero is son* teeti* 
fltf»nar f»r the plaintiff in regard to being informed bjr Levy 
that the lease in question whieh was signed Lery did not 
accept and that the defendf^nts had a new lease for him to 
sign* hut as no suoh lease is in eridenee the subjeot ia 
ianHStterial and irrelevant. 

The plaintiff fuzther testified that two or throe 
days after the lease was signed he aso^^rtainod froai Kelly* 
aa inspeoter of thaatres, and Olson, his assistant, that ho 
oould got no lioense to conduct a thaatro on the premises. 
He also testified that he did not kriow that 17 South i»ear« 
horn street was wtdor hotel promisos. 

On eross*oxamination the plaintiff testified that 
he asked MulTi^ if the prcoaisee oould he used for a theatre 
and what it mould ooot to reeonetruet and equip it; that 
HttlToy looked it 9Vtr and told him it would ooet |10, 000*00 
to oquip it for a theatre; that he was never told before 
he paid the #833.33 that a saoTing picture theatre eould not 



b« eonetuot«4 »n ih« pr«Bis«*s be«ttt»t there w«r« sl*«9ias 
•9«rtm«nts aImt*. On vAirmot •xaoiiuition the plaintiff 
t«8tifl«d that MulTey inT«8tlKat«4 th« building f«r hia 
ana r«port«d that a p«nait oeuld ba gatttn, 

fha vltaaas iSargarat JaM>b«, treasurer and i&aaagar 
of th« Saratoga Hotel & Keetaurant Co, tcKttifi^^d that »ht 
vas faauLllar with tm ^rtmXmmB known a* XI {>auth Baarbem 
«tr««t and that th(>r« ara slaaping and llTlag rooac 0'r«r 
said pramlsas whioh are under the aeiMseBient of th«> Bara« 
toga Hotal. 

The witness ])emicl S. iSulrey, oalled bjr the plain- 
tiff testified that prior to the time thst the plaintiff 
told him he had th^? deal dLeaed up and had ten or twalve 
days option on the plaee he vent over to the Saratoga B&tel 
and found tlwre were liTing and sleeping quarters right abave 

the store rowt] that on eaoh eeoaeion that he had a sosaioa 

t he re v;as 

with the plaijBtiff^a talk about the sleeping or liTing 
rottM aboTe So, 17 South i>earb«m street; that s«Ma tino 
about the Middle of Mar oh, 1915* the plaintiff Tisitc^u his 
effioe and asked him if a e#rtain building on daarbom street 
known as the Saratoga Hotel eould be renoAoled into a theatre} 
that he told hia he did not knew; that he then disoussou with 
the plaintiff how smoh none/ he Intended to put in it, the 
aneunt of weric the iuTestigation wo Id require; that the 
plaintiff told him he was sincere and thst the whole thing 
depended upon whether or not the building eould be recoodeled 
into a theatre; ihat he. Malrey, then want to the hotel and 
asked Miss Jaoobs* the nanager, if she would leas^ it and 
whether the plaintiff had called to se? about it; that she 
said sha had beard of it. and that if it oould be raondelaA 

in aaoordaiKHi vlih th« l«v for « thiAtr« b)m ^ould r«nt it; 
that «h« A»lc«4 him «h«tl»r •r not it eould l>e> done; that h« 
tlM»n ha4 another oonferonoc wiUi tho plaintiff and told hin 
tlMt He had a«eal£ien Jaool>s and that nine »« d she iirouX4 
r«nt it for a theatre and that hf would r«port to him in 
two or t>uro« day*; that he sont an onginoor who vent through 
the entire building and in tioo or throo days when the plain* 
tiff oalXed a«ain he, the witneae, told him it would ooet 
from $10,000.00 to 115,000.00 and that th^ plaintiff said 
that would l»e all right thac he tma readj and villiag and abXo 
ko enter into the oontraot *if it ie possible for it to ho 
built*; that he, UulToy, vent to the building department 
ftgaia and roqueeted the building oeanissioner or the (shief 
theatre iaspeotor to qo over And examine the building with 
hlmj that that was done and he was adrieed that it oould 
be retoedoltd taii upon th<^lr reooi»»end&tion he so reported 
to the plaintiff and prepared to arrajigo for a preliminary 
plan; that t)w plaintiff then told him ''you see I at/i only 
promoting this enterprise I haTea*t the money myself*; 
that he then learned for the first time that the plaintiff 
was xinable finanoially to carry out the projeot; that the 
plaintiff oaid he had a party who was able to furnish 
$12,000.00 and tliat now that he knew the conditions he 
would get to work on it and oae him, (:CalTey, in a day or two; 
that the plaintiff «amw baok about two days later and said, 
"X hare eXosed the leaee. X have got the situation tied up." 
That he aXeo said *I had to do that to proteot myself. I 
hare only $2,000.00 oapltal to put into this preposition and 
I expeet to get a half inteiest in thie proposition**; that 
he said that he had it tied up under a ten or twelve day 

^'tfntxXmiJiVlK. 6 -i 

-:< i. 

i^ibf 0»lMi oi 

■;f^ *»l*. 

;i> ■'■. •■•MiSfJ -It 

-art «if iJarfj 


•ptloa. tfulTty further t«sUfi«d that the «}»l9 aattwr 
fell through and that the plaintiff told hia that th« man 
he had in b1ii4 liad fall an dawi on his prevdaaa ee that ha wa» 
tuttrvy ha had glran hia, ^Mkrmy, th«« trouhl«> and vishad ta 
know if *^ulTiQr kaev of anybad/ elaa; that ha, Mulvajr* ra^ 
farred him to a maftar of p&rtlaa who were in ihot auurket for 
such thinge; that tfX^iy time he had a saeeion with the plaintiff 
from the fir at tina ha mat hin tha one vital point th«gr talked 
ahout wae the ■ leaping and livini; reome ever the etore room 
at Mo, 17 South Daarhem street. 

At the eloaa of the eTidenoa the follaving oolloquy 

"MR. dfiUfttilBi Will your Honor give rae an opportunity 
to aupport »y poaition* I aak for a oontinuanoe. 

tW CGUH7: 1 oan only go hy the evidenoe; just 
hy wlBiit has bean diaoleoed hy the evidence. 

MB, (ilUIGSaS} Before your Honor haa rendered a 
d«oision I want to be perzaltted U call Mr. Xridfeeoa m» 
a witBeas here; I want to be perioitted to call in the 
building eoaniesioaer, Sri ok eon. 

"SM CODmi He is not here; and I cannot eontinue 
this case. 

MH. OILMCRB: X was taken by surprise. 

fK QOumt Surpriae or no surprise I eannot con* 
tinue tMe ease.* z 

The plaintiff* e oauao of aetion as set forth in the 
Btat«sou»at of olain is based on thn theory that he was entitled 
to reoorar baok a deposit of $833*33 beMiuse the defendants in* 
duoed hia tc pay over that sua under pn agreement the objeet 

'ifi fe-Ki 


•f i#iioh WR* proMMt«d hy law. Suoh wa» the aHalm viMn tK«r 
«»utt« wfts tried in thn lower court, 

Tte tftitiadny of auXtajTc the plaintiff* b vitneaa» 
•b»«« oenoIuMlvely that the plaintiff knew th»t the priM&leea 
ia <|tt«etiOR wer« under llTlng and sleeping quarters and that 
thff d«f«adant, Mark L«Ty, did not oono«al that faet from hia. 
MulToy t«fltifl«d that eT«r^ tlau» he had a eoaeioa with th« 
plaintif ! the prinoipal thing the^ talked about «ao the sl«i9« 
iag or 1 lying roeois over th^ store reoa« It is obTiouB» tberow 
for«» that the plaintiff *fii case* ae made out upon the trialt 
entireljr diepvoTod %im theory of illegality ao set forth ia 
tlm atataeaent of al&ia« In thie ^urt the plaintiff aev 
Tattoes for the firat time the ol*.iB that he ie «^ntitled ta 
recorar baeaaaa tlui defendants repudiated and rejected the 
jprapoaad laaaa. the evidence, however, dees not eupport 
«'W9n that contention, 

Fraa what th«> raeord oaatalaa, it ia our opinion 
that the plaintiff paid the dapoait of #«»9.33 belieTiac 
that he would he able to go on and oarxy out the agreeaaat 
whieh ha nada at the time af th^M4naant» hut that aub* 
aatiuentlj he found that hm «aa uaahle to do »a« and thea 
aought without good reaaon to rtoairar haak liie aanajT* 

Finding no error in the record the Judgment ia 
af f i rmad* 

e«e<MnMMi, j, ahb trnmBm, 9, 

i mi \ 


130 • 2f»M 




sLiAS TiBtamsxmm,, 


. 1 

M«»ieii»AI. COURT 

) # CO? oaiCAOC. 

219 I.A. 654 

opinion of tnai eourt. 

6a i^rU 16, 1916. th« plaintiff deais«<i, ^ 
writt«n Imt,—, 604 north 4^ar£t street* Chleago. %/& tlM» 
dcf«ndftitt, im$il i^ril 3G, 19£0, f«r s r^ntel of $4aOC,00, 
to ^9 paici in Si^ntlily iBStellseat* ef $d€,CO« 

SomttiiM ftl^ut %Ry 15* 1918* thia 4ef«^<mt ejideava^r* 
«d to ebtaia ft oaae«^llatlen of thak% leaa* «»d th« 8r«atlea ia 
its itt«a4 of a faurtaan yaar leasa at a rantal ef |7&«00 a 
aanth. Aaoardiai^ly a fOiiX'taaa jrear laaaa «aa dnum up. and was 
al9i«d Itagr ttea defendant os i(«|East 1, 1918, and at tl^t tiaui 
daXirerad to tha plainUff. 

It is ttl Btaad lagr tlM» d^fendaat tJwt at the tlm* of 
tha BOfffttiatioB for tte fourteen jroar leaea. Me rent hod ^aaa 
paid up to July 1, Itia, and that tho plaintiff ai^raad in oeii-i 
•ideratiOB of tius ehaaso i« th« l«»aeia« to allov Ma or«dit 
for tJie rant for the aoath of July. 1918. On AofttBt 1, 1918, 
ihm d«fonnaat paid tlio raat for that aoath, hjr a eheek for 
l73»oe and a eradit for repairs of #2.00. fhat vao at tho 
rato spaoified in tho aov loaao. On Saptoaiher 8, 1918, tho 


Amt«n<Aaai% 9cd4 ihe rent f»r that iB0»tb lay^ e}i««lE f»r |75»^ 
•as 98 OetolMT SI, 1913, he ««« «v«4ite4 «iih |7&*C0 for the 
r^fit of i^at i»ath. 

It is agiNi^d \Qr €Ouae«l for tMth pmrtimm thst th« 
fourt«e8 x^Htr lefts* is »»t in feree; a»d, aXm, it i» «4> 
niii«d Igr tlM dttFaa^aiit tlareugli e«itii»«l that h» eiF«4 r<mt 
«t t^ mt« «f #ar^«oe per w»3itli for ttw »»aths of iloYf»%«r 
aa4 J^e«a^«ir« 191S» wb4 Ja^nutiey, i9itc vnH&er the old loetoo. 
thm Ti^mult i» %tm% the hX^m of the pialatiff at th« trial 
«M for four tmnthsP rent at $86.00 ]Mir noaib« aad a l9«l«aoo 
of fS.OO for oaeh of th« aeatho of iUtgttOt* B^ptmtxSamt and 
OetoVor, 1918. aakiag i& all, t»g^timr with ISO, 00 attoraoy** 
fees, %hm was of i38S«^» tto amoimt for «lsi3h Jtt^gaont vos 
fimtily entered wad froa «M«di this apfteei has Ifteen talces. 

tistm defemleiit »ow ooatoado that, as a matter of 
iair» the rentftr tke aeath of ?uXy into released and die* 
ohavsod ty tip mutual aots and agreeamits of the parti«»s. 
Bttt that eentOBtiOB, in viev of the eridt^oe 
i»xd th» adaissioBs of the defea^baat. is nov ttotOMible, And 
the sfOM is true as to the <»mt6Btic» that the defendant did 
BOW ooe & haloaee of fS«00 for mt&t of the M»atho of August, 
£»^tiRad»or aad Ootoher, 191.8. At i» tiaw aao the fourte^i 
y&ut loaoo ia foroe. lsviB« adadtted tJwt th«> defendant 
oved Utre* aoaths rent at #80,00 for i3m montlm of ffeT«d»er. 
end ji^eeeadMr, 1918, sad Janaasry* 1919, it tmjf net now ho 
reaaonahly elaiaed hj the defen<iaat that his rent was aot #80.00 
tet #75.00 per aioath daring Aucast, SoptoailMr aad Oetohor, 1918. 

As to the oOB tent ion that it was orrottootts to alio* 
180.00 attorney* s fees;* that natter is now put forward for 

ih* tirmt, tia«. th€ ori^insil ^ud^jn^nv hy oonfeiiKieo wa» for 
#S70*00« and &» Vvlnraftiy tt« ISIS, «ft«r s Jiur iTliU awl 
v«rAi«%« tfurlag irM«)i time th» oriitiiMiI Jii4«a«Bi stetA mi 
••sarity, » ^u4iiMnit for ;^38&«0i;i «»• •»t«r«d« C^ Miir<A 8. 
19X9, mpmT^ntl^ to rweUfjr tise rmmt^i and awle* th« pr««i«*A» 

4it48M»a% ^m i1ft« fitw of f 38ft, 00 WBA ihfta •i!it«r«4« 

At the ttiml •ri««a«« «»• iiitr04tuo««l te tl»» •ff««% 

i» waf«»»»liic lh« Ji»%n«iii%* ir»ft |ftO,&0« IMi4«Er t>li« «ir«M> 
tt«n«««« ilt« l«a«t pi^vi41iig for Att«migr*» f«*«c tht itt4i;* 
ntst^ ^ oonfe««ioii tmvliifi 1se«ii «ni«r«4 And wtlrstt^iiiiftfiUar t«i» 

th« i»tt«niigr*» t—m w»r» morth $&0*(K}« ftA4 finnlljrt ^^« JuAft- 
ttcnt l^r oonfr^eftiea lM»in^ TKMt«tf %» 9*riAt %h» r<»*«alurar of 
% timtX Ju<l^*e^» wlileb difrer«4 &nljr in r vvf^ •ss«ai «■«««% 
ff«m tJa* •rlKiOAli ;hi4|piMifi( Kgr oonff-vttiea. «• itr* tf Ui» 
opiaion ih«t »> «rrftr wui eiMaait%«4 in dlvvliii mti^rnvy** 


o*o€miii« .r« Asm fscmsca, j, cc 


151 k S54C& 

App«ll vc • 




219I.A. 654 

MB, PH^msiia JUSSXOl TAY).C« delivered tht opinion 
• f the Qourt* 

ClaialQg tliAt h« lufui a ihr«« /•«r oentraot of 
omployaont an«a that ilio (I«»f«iid8tnt dieo)aurc«d Mm liftfore 
thtt cjcpiration of thut timo, -without (»U8«* th« plaintiff 
brought ouit aund r<»oov»r«d judgment in the mm ©f ♦400»€)0 
«nd coets. thie app«4'9il ie thrr^-froia. 

On July 12, 1913. thi! plain Uff and the dofomd* 
ant enter«d into a written tt^roem«;nt w^roTiqr the plaintiff 
vno antitilojrod bjr the defendant oc»ap«nQr* a aanufKOturer of 
ftrtifioial llmba, for throe years from that date ao a 
ttaohiniot at $25»Q0 per week. Ihe plaintiff \tn^mn to work 
undi^r the af)»rosald oentraot on July 15. 1913. Cn Cotober 
SO. 1914. he wat notified. in writing. ¥y the defendant that 
owinK to an ouMinKOndy the hoard of direetoro h»d deoidod 
to mako a out of IC^ on all oalariee and ooofisleaions froa 
and after the firot day of Dooemhor, 1914. 

It 1ft the oTidK^noe of the plaintiff that upon 
reooipt of that notioe he wont to Re«l«y. the preoident 
of the ooapaay* and had a oonvoraation eitn hia eoneeminc 


the |^rope»*4 T»4«eti(»ii. as &!•» )ia4 « eeBT«rs«tioa with 
ttmrpii^ «»tf Tr«s«li, vhtt were »«ai %Qr Edwlsy to »•<» If th«y 
9o%ti4 act ••ttX« the »att«r with hin. !^)»» plaintiff ««/• 
th^t th« dagr «ft«r t» firing stttlee ftttrp^ hsind^d to his 
hie eheek and aftl^rrt Msb what h« tma ti^iti^ to <los If h* tnui 
goiae ^o aeee^t thft «tt, sn4. that h«« the ^aiatiff, tmmwv^rni 
that h« «aa aot; that Har^kv th«B aaid, «Xta ail off if you 
408* i a«ft*pt th« eat.*: ili^t en Eeatfajr nazistiiig he repcrtedi 
to w&tk fl»d was told ^ tr^veh. that he ^ui6 ge ta wevic if 
he asaaptail the out Imt nat eth^r^sa; th«t he r«]»erted a« 
fueater aaA VHteasday of ths aasKe wctic aad r«««:iTe4 the aHWi» 
MMnrar; that he thas aotight an4 ohtained W9A elaavhara, moA 
dujriikg th« Ufa of hie acatmet frftm that verk Mimad $a7S.81« 
!rha plaintiff's wark «aa makiwm staal %ti^9 for »i^utatias«» 
•ad ahaa part*. 

Heviagr* the preaidast «f the dftfeiMSaat <»a9«flgr* 
teatified that the {>iaiAtiff • after ha eaata ta najrlc ia Jaij* 
X91S, «arlc«»d atmidily antil H«v«ah«r ar SefiN>>ah«r of that 
jreaar, »h«ii he vaa alM»«at for i«« or tluree veehat vithaot 
attthoritgr frwa th^ aee^MB^S that during that time he «aa 
driakiais; that ia Umjf, 1914, the aaae thiag ha^jtened; that 
he did aot hter* ma^ talk with the plaiatiff on Cotahar 31 « 
1914, hat that oa Mvaa^tev 6, 1914, he aaat far hta aad ia 
afaakias of the aaatraet of m^lajraent aaid to the plaia* 
tiff *Whan a i^tioe «aa iaaaad to the aaplo^eea eeneerBiac 
a oat ia ealarieo wm4 «Mu^aaiaaa we did net oc-at«B^lata 
you, «a auppoaa jrou had harae aaaae enough %o knew wo would 
aet iasao a natiee to all of th@ na^lajoiNi aad fat jrau la 
«i oxoeptifm ia the aotic«, I have jr^eeiTod inforoatioa 

fr<»s %lm ctey mud I hRV« Tmi«ii»4 th<»r« s^jptMilf aad you )»▼• 
end<^avor«d io arriiiy tta« «ai^le7'*»s •saiaet the eoaq^Mqr «h«n 
your iiiM «Ms4 b«ft «8^eaT0r is * portion of ^oiir ^Hitrsoi 

to pui^ th« ^»a|»fidr>7 out of iMioiiiess. You arm tiiet worklvm 
f «r tb« iwyBy, A tdt^^sk; mrnitn y&tt fr«3i tl» wuMig«r»* 
l'U« evl4«B««! c^vs tte«t Although it vao eiftla«di ^ aovltgr 
ttet til* plaintiff vfts «-v«y ^H» or thr«« ivcc^a is DaoCMlMnr, 
Z91S« tMd a«kjr in Stay. 19i4, ii« wmnt to wotic tktt«irv&r49 
the a«se aa uturl. 

Oa «ma«*«auMiiiMiiffiR !le«i4i^ t«^atiri«4 that tha 
piaiatiff vac e«tllc»d tt tH« offie^ aa aaeataftt af Ma general 
eoiMttat; tlnat tte otttting ef plaintiff *a »i^«» ted nothins 
ta 4o with hi » disoiaiinia; tliat he aaa <ll»e))az«a4 1»aiMiiM>« 
af his **i^ltati@n*; ftttting cwplayaaa «gaiaat tha aaaipanjrs 
alwsijre talkidg ai^laat %h« oca^^aay, 

A witaaae Sehrea^er tastifie4 th&t th« vaale aftar 
tha plaintiff qait voxic h« told the vitaae^ that he ima 
coins ^« P^^ tha aoM^Mqr out af Imaiaeaa; that at tha tiwt 
tha plaintiff aaid that, th^ra wt»r* thjf*a or four athar •»• 
H*3r»«» »raa«its that tlw plainUff aaid that ihty e«ul4 
all pat tt9 ocaa iBsaaay far attam^y** faaa mmI tto»n »aka 
tha aM^ttmr pay than diYid«nda, 

A altnaaa, Bayla. a femar assplayaa mhm aarlcad with 
Om plaintiff at t^ Una tha latter was aisployad hy tha 
dafaaiiaat, taotifind that tha plaintiff laft the d*f enfant 
ahaut eatohar Sc ^r St, 1914; ttet hm mv him tha vaak follei^ 
iiW; that the plaintiff talked to his ahaut oontfitiona and 

e«t in vas**S ^^«^ ^^« i^Iaistlff u&td th* verloBeii si^uld net 
sta^sd for ftnytMRS Iilc« ihtit: tH«t lift lir>.d various itHkm wiXh 
th« pl«iatlff; Xh&X the l«tt<(^r 9«U4 en one eoeAftlon )»e vialMi^ 
to £9t tHe boy* togethf^ to put the eOHq^aiagf eut ef biiete«e« 
•e tH«9r eetiltf appoint » r«e<&iT«r. 

On era8«*«XftmiBaticii thf* %itaees t^&tlfledi t.Iitet 
lM» teld tJM pr««i<i«nt of th« defea^ant &eaa^sa^ th&t ih« 
plftiatiff tfae tvjiJig te g«t « receiver ftpp«ia%«a; th»t tlw 
IpXaiatlff « 0ft«r he i^« dieelAXg#«l, t«l(t Itlm th«t li« h»4 * 
oimtiaet t^r $29% 1^0 » v«^ iajsgI w%9 g^im to swke tlhaai llT* 
«V» to it. 

A vitae»«« Friiiee* anise teetifi«Nl tMi 1m kiiev 
ef t«e oeeftBioee when the px&intiff «»• eff werk for sffTcral 


7he plaintiff testified in r^Vattal «&d sontra* 
4iotftd the t<>«tiM»«gr ef Mo«l«yf den^iac thut th« lattor tseat 
for hitt te $e te hie office or «aid vimt h« he4 b«ea geiaig 
ftr»«d»l %hm facteiy g«ttlcME foadft %& Mr^ a I«igr«r awi 4«iggriim 
l^ettiiig druak. At tb« dose ef the »vi<i«ae« vh7<M» inetntertions 
were «iir«i3 for tl»e pleintlff Rn«i six for the defeaci^iit. Sl» 
|i»7 brought in a Tordiet »g&laet the d^feadaat for ^4CC.OO 
ciR<i j«<%m«at vae eiit«r«<3 oa tlMt t eaouBt, 

flM 4«f«m<in»% eentetMie that the pieiatiff failed te 
enqiljr vitii th«» ooatrAot ef ^f^t^l^raeat; that ]»« did not ^Ive 
Mf: tUm and ^et eadeaYor to tii« iat«>r<'ri ef the d«>f^nfinnt 
moT seapiy at all tia«Ns aitii the dtr«»etioae «ad iaetruetieae 
ef thi* ^feadaat end d^i>ort hiaself ae lNifitviii|r hie ]ppeitioa« 
1i%et evideaM^ there waa en that smbjeet, tbet is, ae to vhat 
tte pXaiatif f did aad vhethar }h» ooadaoted hinaaif as an eat* 

{>l»jr«» chould* «aa •ttteitUd to the jury uaniisv 9ro|>*v ta«lurwo» 
tloas tfjtd uttlef»» «• «y« a1»X« i« 4tH»itoiiiA« vhMit tluit rri4«ii<w 

el«^jpl/ aad i!»al,f«Bt.Iy does »•% »»9P«rt t^ ir«rtli'9% wv «r« 

Tlw !»r««id(»at ef ike d«fAntl»^a% oMUMoiy t«»%ifi«« 

Uw ifttt«r «»• 4icel3ftf)i«4. anil a oflprvful 0Diiftldi4!^jr»Uott of 
t>li« eirmwHi^sEiio*** «ir«ii mm r«9l,i«d la;^ thi@ i^r^iiidc'ai of th« 

roftl rMuica for iiM» 4i«o^rgo of IHo filaintiff ««o not A«ro» 
liotion on iho piott of the lattor Irat o doolrc on tho yart 
of %hm eom^mof lo out down tmj^mnmmm. It th# ^unr 1»oli«T«d 
tho tosttaNii||r of th« plo3,atlff » oad It mojr ooolly ^toTo dono 
•o, Xim dof«»oo oot vk» \qf tb« ooj^pioiijr foiX.«d. We Iioto matm» 
fully «ion»idorRd t^l tho ovidonoo in t)»ft oooo san^ fool tttuttd 
to I«t t^ JitdKatont otsnd* 

8o«w| oo«t«ntloB i» mad* 1^ ttee d«f«» «»i «o to tho 
oaottst of iho Tordiot, 'ih« only figuroo ooitait^ttod (io tbo 
JttXT^ of tlw doaogoo «^sd»«d wore |i^6S^«lSi and Ui* wtiouai 
wMe^ h» oomod fr«M tho tiiso of Mo diooiiovgO until tho oob* 
pimtlen of Mo oontroot, b«cla« tho oum of $8?it«3l. Xho diffor^ 
ono« Wtvodn thooo o;me»vmto is a lltvlo noro thon tho nnoiait 
•f tho Tordiot iMid it oooaw ^uito oWiouo thot tho jury oi^ 
rivod at ito Tordiet bjr taking the ouhot.^ntii9tl dlff<?jr«noo ho» 
twoon tho dowMPMi OL«i«od ond Ohm wnoMat oarii««d, Th# plola* 
tiff testifiod tJhot ho originnUy bought |tOO*00 n«rth of 
ote^ In %t» dofondont oonfMgr and thot ho hod boon imid 
Ii00,00 thi^roon \mt it oortolnly dens not folio* tram that, 
thot tho jiuy hoood its Tordlot on tho difforonoo hoioo«i 
ths 000 1 of his •%mtk &m& thf» aaeiMt of his dividondo. 


Xt ««• tHitQ el»i««4l that ife* OD-Jirt •rr«d in 

insiruotlBc the Jury. Ab •acudnatidtt ef t)w ia«trtt«%ions« 

baiw«Tcr» aliMivs ih«t ih«y were quit« strfnivlgr in f«T«r •f ! 

tilt defendant Mid Uuk% th« »rr«r« «lai»«d on Ms bofanlf v«r« 

at Moat» trivial and insu>«taatial« j 

blading nft amr In th* re««r4 tlia jM^pnant it 


Afn«i0u»« j 

0*Oafi)OB, J. AVi) XiK»801f 1, Qf|iaiEB« 


X9l • 2544 • 


MAX MmaSt \ I 

M99*lUm^ I / 




219 i.A. 654 

of ib« oeort. 

am 9iti§%mtimt $•• 19X«, »t \h» iiit*tr««otioii of 

dMrtJStoa »▼•»»• ft»«a Ksaesaw 7ftrr»e« &it the 01 (/ of OMocMst^ 

to tii«« d»f««dftat «elli««A« 4iuKa«iQK VimX of tlk« plaintiff 
ftiid fllfto iBjurliig t>i« r»lAiatiff ^mrnoriAtt^f, tli« plutntiff 
¥7<iu«lat »uit, Xt nm» trl«4 befor« a iiurjr wml r^cultod in 
ft Twrdiet and iUd«»i«»t in fucmr of th» i>lftitttiff ^n4 ^qgaiast 
%}m d«f<'n<tjmt in th« w&» ef t2»C/C0»O0« 

tJpoB tM« appcctti by vh« d<if •B«lanit fr«tt Uttt 4tttf»* 
iR«iit, tl»« onijT oenl«nti«>a i>s th^tit th^ driT«T ol t.iii<^ <i4»t>tt4» 
aiat*» Atttoaeliiltt mX %h» ti«« <if th« •lX«£«di nn^Xi^ntn^* wmm 
n^l ih«r itie ftt^rrfltnt swir hl« •s«^iit and mis tm% «nK«««d in or 
upon an^ dttty of« or for Idn, ih» d«f«fa(l«iit. 

It i« ilM tlittox:^ ef tk« pleijiUff Ikat ob« MIoIimI 
Moxsomett, i^to wso dxiTing ihft automobiXo ef tlt<4 dcf^'r^nat 
«t ttw Uw« of uh> oeilision, #»■ th? i^j^i^iit of ww* d«>foad» 
•at and iHt» aetuAliy oaij^god in » duty for th« def«nd»at 
«t tJw timo of th9> aooitf*nt» 


* «&tii«»» oa his li«lMdf • t#»stifiod timt, li«, th« def«iidABt, 
miB •ii|pl«jr«di Ml a miimiiii^ laetPttcrtor »t Vim llltnoi» Aib* 

wall ft )»rleklRjr«r; ihai oa th^ morning ef &9pt«nb«r 28, 1916, 
h»t \h«> plftiaiiff, )^s Rt ih« Ulinois AUiletio OXiib at 
about •ight a^alaci^ in this aiemiasi t)m,t be hs4 »o«<? talk vitli 
lidllematrt viiA ref<rr«>no<« id Ux^ uaa af hla, ib« defendant*^, 
autaaiabila} ibai ba did net 8«n4 iflmrvmtt angrvbarv vltb 
%lm auioanbila; tb»i hff gava Ma^arwitt parmiaalan ta uea 
tba attiomeblla thai merning %o go to <irorlc ta Me i^la8«> ef 
«tt)^la)rta«nt aa th« Sarth aide, 8»tt«wbara ia tbn naigibartaead 
•f ^hietTidimB tmmA m»A Wilaon avanua; tbat Mel^3matt*a buai* 
naaa <»n tbat dajr «aa Xaaria4S brioie mad that bafora tbat ti«a 
KaOwmatt baa barraaa^ hie (tutaiBabila nmytmrsiX timntu that ba 
l»ai(l na thins for the aaa of it| tbat at th^^ Ua«< af tb«» trial 
XaOaiwBtt was a fXjriae anaiicB ii>i tii^* ^nitftd ^tatas JlaYy at 
Ra<d(««ay Bi»aa]l3 that hm «r« neTar flnsi^lajra^ by >Uja; that ba« 
tba d«f«*n<3ftnt» a«rra» bad a abaaf faarj tbat «»a tb«» 4ay in 
Viaation ba leanad bis oar to ^aziianaatt jviat aa a farar to 
bia aa a friand; tbat tba rali^tion batwaan M«aalf and 
li«2»ajmatt wmm puraly » »ooi«il en^i i^bat umewmutt bnd na 
iat«ract la tba «ar la any <«ajr$ tbat ha nmrmr pnX4 bia angr 
a»aajr or Mijr atb«r eaa»id(*rotioa for dyiviag tb« oajrt tbai 
ka waa aaaaatmaad te djrlira tba car biaaalf* on radlirtat 
aSfwiaatiaa, b« taatified tbat aa tba aaraiae af tb» day af 
tb9 diaaatar ba got bia oar at tba «ara«a at 47 tb and Yi»» 
aaaaaa; tint at tb« tisa b« aaa ItTing »t 4S»i Viac^-nnaa aTenat; 
tbat ba baril KO£araott rada datra taan togatb^r in tb# oar aad 
Uhat ba panadttad IU(ai>fti«att te go nar tb witb tba mw; tbat 
HttDamatt van ta aoaa badk that aTanlnff tc» ^at bia aad tbsgr 

««Ffi seiBg on eoal^ %}mt «T«rtii^s that !tiaNrrMit>t i*«iN»r 
««rlc«4 for him at moot %i»mi ihat in driTiag 4«tm f««« i» ilw 
taomlRg »eeM»tia« )»» weulti driir* «ii4 Bsetetls** MelMinaott «oaI4 
<iriY«; tltet (li«^ Ai4 >ie( aXwijrii fio <le«n tog«tli«ir in tiw ssMni* 
i«K> thfti •«■« s&xmiilies ^« ^^ d«f«Aaaat« %&iit«d t« ^ d«tn0i 
fwirXjr and d» ilios« M»ming« JfaGU*jraM»tt hft4 ie uilr« tne eirft^t 
<»r; Uhi.% oa the morrtlMg Is qaesllcn Efl£«jra)9%t 4r9V« il3,« <»sr 
down with bSits th&t th^ onI|r yta<t«r«it»a4i>m as Uf vh»t «»• 
to hRpp«!} tn tiie wtfaliis •f i^t (tay vft<^ th»& whi»B iileSensott 
got thr<r^]& the ear «a« to ^ r«tani«*9 to Moi. th« plsuatlff. 

TeraatldH at the lllinoit Athletio OXvth l»(rUre«ii tbe 4«f«a<ia«it 
wad OS* ClmrXaa ?• aarrl;;!. X>)4^ isritneeft '<Nim, im i.irr«atigater« 
ealletf 1^ i^ plaintiff* t^s^tifird that «hertljr lB«>r«re the 
trial k« asd @n« 0^url«»6 I. Barris want to %Sx^ lllXaoxs Ath» 
latla Olsdk asd »«t Vnn dafendaat in xki^ avisniag destart-^ant, 
aad ttet h« bsari Barrla aa2c tl«i 4ef«(i4«iit if ii# was tito moi 
9ho l!^d tJ^ a«4^d*st in §ept«nlb*«r« 191$, liwi tluit ih9 defesA* 
afitt aai4« yaa; timt, tterrie t^Min a«k«si Mia If hip e«is«<t tlM 
saehina; ttait Usm» dafi^sa^ttt aaid«y«a, an^ Uiat th« 4af»miftist 
•ai4 that K«^l«ntt»tt «»« striTii^ the sffi»ahis«s tiKai the «l«f«>a4» 
aftt al»a iuU4 that MoXfar^oit uruu on the 4af«»lattt*s aatjr at 
tha tine t^ aoal4«nt ha^^satf* 

TlMP d«f«s«aat taatifiad on hit! q»s Ir^half that« 
an t,k^ aeaaaioa ref < rr«4 ta ^ ««m« t«a ai«« •»»« ta •«« hln 
at tlita Illiaola Athlatia CXiAi thm% he 4i4 aat knav alt^»r af 
tli«a; tife&t t^ ftltfar of th<^ t«« iiaid ha a^itOMt t% dieooaa th« 
«a»« mkttk idM ^ut tl^t he, t)i» 4erefiaaist« rafaa^r^ to ^ aa, 
«»• alw, <»atradist«d th« t«««tiaafiy af Wrm» that ha «iai4 

te,4 b««n A fri«n^ ^f Mis Biaa« h» ^»c flft««tt ^eiurt 9t 

JtjK* «h«ii )&« mm* a Jamier lat^Wr of tJstes Y.M.C.A. wl»^r« hfi« 

drlTing <!Ars; thst h« dr«^« hl» xM»tl»r*« aa4iXl&« for i%baui 
feur jreftir* \m% tJmt It* sH^v^r «m^»Xe;y«(i him. It ir- oeiitt«tf<»<l 
^ eouas:#l for both partioo tlHit thm ^*fimBe§m&t is i»»t iiabl* 
for t^ 9mgjki0iimc« of tbi^ ^SriVftr of Me ^'sttte^ioliile t»l<»s« 
%h« driver ftt ii:»> tsjfti» of th« slX@ig«a a«sglig«sia« «rs^ ftitl^r 
bis s-FTBiit or ftg«nt. Arki» v* ^&|fi&* ^S'' ^^* ^^^'« ^^* 
it ie dL)idlA«4 on Irohalf of tli« dofoiadiAi tiuit th« &rf&%mT 
wmlftht 9f %he eritfoitoe e1a©w© t&fti iJfc» «Srlver of tiio 4#f«a*- 
aBt*e euto^@bil« mat aoitkeor tks oorYAxit »»r tho Agent of 
tJEto distfrnxtdi^ni. mnA tbat In? w4M( ao v -vngj^ect in or aptm «»ar ^^^ 
of or for tfes cl#f»Kd»n$* 

Xo ei»tt4»ntion ii'* aia:^« in regerd to t)io ftzt««t of 
the ^>lftia%iff*o iajAri^s. nor «• to tMe Ae»unt of ^mukg^* 
»«ard«4 Iter Ao to t^ »ir>^is^^«« of i^^ driver of tiio AutoaoMIo 
At th^ tiao ot th« eoilioioB* Xi^ »oi<» ^tt#otion is* ««« tlw 
tiriv«r, HoBoriiio tt« «t tbm tl<s« of the ooUioioA %S»m oorvAat •r 
«e«at of t^ dofeaiiAjat. th« «it»«o» ««aA teotified thAt on 
Ufm ^tardAy 1s>efor@ th« triol ia » eewroroAtioa wita tho do* 
ff«i€(A]it tim latter s^d thAt Moisojraott* th« 4riT«r, «a« Ott 
Hio, tiVB 4«f4ai4l!»)it*o daty. 1fh« «l<«'f@n<isiitt Afl4 Uei>rr3«Bttc 

sooiAlljr, «»r« cieoo fri«tt^et ai$<l ixid l^'^^a for quito a wmi'fciny 
of jrrnr^, thuf liet^n&mit otftt«^ that McO^raott wao a ^risle* 

fttttSQWiiil* »n4 pAi4& «othl«ig for I^m? ttai» of it; vh&t )» l«% 

nor A«^ oifhcr oonfticii^ri&tiom ter driving %H« «Mr« I'lw ti«t*n'Am 

r«4« 4e«a t«wa %(»$*t^r fr»m 4Yth an4 finwnmtitt air«au« syik4 ii»«t 
lift 9r«yikiii4Nl »0iSmrMm%% %& &fi north ^ith th« ears ^'^^ i$:«D«4m»tt 

V9M t« «OMt« \»ft«d( )^l«ki «v«aiiii %e 0^9%, him AiHi t'R»^ «r«r« ^eiitg 

<lrlT«s tlN»A «« ilMT sM»rnln«( ie Q«t«atioii M«l2«]r8K>it 4jr«v* tlur 
9tMr 4ei«m with kliR{ tint i^4r &ViX^ vm&'^rteti^Minii «» i^ «rtet 
««.(» to 'im»:j^mm In th« ire*Bi,n& ef t)Mt «iiijr iMk»t «!»<''« Mo^m»tt 
g»t tHr^mi^h, tlM «ftr ««• te 1^ r«tum»4 i<» Mm* Ui« {^Iftiotiff* 

Tl^* J«ryhave d«t«r®i»ttt fr^w tJ« «iri <£«««« thm 

f»»a4«t »©•« iSatjr for Mm* Qt o©v,ijr»», if th©/ feeii.';-V«4 tim 
t«ttU»ea(yr of »«»»• %»<; %im% tei<tla»flQr i»! «nti]r«ly Qon»i»t«at 
with vi*« t«^»tiMNiy of tii« 4«f«?t6a«t a* t© tJi*- W«j' iKi wiaisn tM 
ftuttmolii],* «w« 4riY«A f^rpiss ti«t« to tt(ii# s^i ue«(l ^n tJw 4ny ift 
«l«»«tiatt# t)i9iJr v«r4i9t it proper and Wi<»r« i« ncttiiMg ia ttwi 
r»ijdr4 «M9k ««ul« Jwttify »« is •v«rri(liii0 it« ^uai «« ti^ 
AS ie «l<a3ai*4 fe»y^ ife is«o«r«iljr 4ifn<mlt t» py*ira 4a » >«•«• 
olttfiiv* nwk ofevmimlmXvi^ twgr. But, th« «triti*nor W6.6 3Gft«id«r» 
•A •uffloittts^ ^ ire July ««<l e»»«i45«ri»g thwtr •tt|^«ri©r yoti* 
ti^, I'mvifift %h« ^tii««»«ft 1»«for« t^AK •« ttsmt th«gr w«r« in 
& )»«tt,«r i^eiti. 8 to Ju4is^ •f tlMir «r4»4l.)tiXit]r %lmn «« «r» 
«* 49 iw% f««l ^a«tifi«4 in iioidiaf thiat ti&«ir 4«t«rtaiii*ti«B 


•a %h» mk\*im^ of a^mtv e^ ^ty i» «&«ii«S|r AgftlaMii %m Wight 

©•cc- ■,<..-.•., J, 4ir*i iHsasof, J. aoM0Us. 




AX'PSAL ¥)&jU 

or caiOAQo. 

« eorx»oratlon. \^ / d lu 1 .A* Q 5 4 


M£. Fil£3Ii}XIQ JQSSIOS a*<iYLOxi deilTered \im oplaioa i«£ the ouurt. 

Vh» plaXatXti , Moatts fiielu^rdscB, ItresfclKt suit ag^-lnst tk* 
A«£«iicLeizit , iBdia X«a Ooiiqp^cijr, £«r dfittiifoa fcdr p&ruom^l ixijorieti 
SBSt&lMNI Iby r«ti8uii Qi \*9iag atraoic by aa tttttottobilo whioh it 
was aiaaged was nagligontljr 4rlvaa b;^ an «^«&t of the Aaifi»clant. 
On fioTaabar X;£,l»17, betweau &:30 and 9:00 o*oloak in lUia jstomiag, 
the plaintlfjE, an dXd aoukiaara negro, who auld ita w&a Bl jat^ra al 
aga, an aia^JLoyea al Uae City ai CMaugo, whlla woricisg at his 
bualneaa of atraat olaaaiag on tha north aida of 6ted street 
batwaaa Pr Inoatoa &nd tvaatworth ATanaaa, was atraojt on the right 
htind lay a Ford truoJc, whieh belongad to the defendant and wa« 
drlTen l»y une MeUuxien, its agent. 

It la Ola load on bahulf of the defendant that the 
STldmoe does not diaeleae &ny negligeaae on the pi>^rt of the 
defendt^nt bat shews th&t the pii^lntiff was guilty of ooutrlbuiory 
hagligenoe; i^lao that the daiiagas allowed were exeeaaiTe. We are 
of the opinion that both oonteations are ontenable. 

She aridenae of the driTar of the traais: ia aaoh thut. (iuite 
obrioualy, we are not oatitled to oTorride the verdiot of the 
ivxy» it is hia testiiaony thiut he mis going west on 6^rd street, 
STidantly traveling in the ear traaJc, and that & street ear aaas 

op behind hiJB and sonadad its gongj that ha then turned oat of 


ti» tr&9k,B to the right ^^nd wvat aa withaat stopping and in 
doing 80 strook th« plaintiff who wus goiag west on th« street 
fthe&d of him, on the right hand side ntAx the onrh, sweeping. 
She only esceuse giTen lay the drirer is that i£ the plaintiff 
had not put out, or pushed out, his arm in staking the motion 
of sweeping, the autoraobiie would faaTe gone hy without touohing 
his* Ckinsidering th&t the plaintiff, bs & street sweeper, hsd 
a perleet right to he on the street, ti^nd that he was only bound 
to exeroise reasonuhle oi^re in the perioraaia6« of his fnnotion 
of street sweeping and tho-t the driver of the trusk s&w him, 
STidently in time to h»Te stopped his uutomohile t\dthout in- 
juring him, ua he was only going ahout lour or five miles an 
hour, it would seem thut the tritO. judge wus fioatirely justified, 
purtiouli^rly if he believed the testimony of the plaintiff, 
himself, and his witness WilliamB, in finding for the plaintiff. 

In U * Connor v. Union k* Go. ,7S H.Y.Stupp* 606, where a 
street sweeper w&s struek, while worJcing between the rails, 
by an approaohiag e&r, the oourt st>.id, "it baa been held th&t 
persons who are eiE^ployed hy u munioipulity and working upon the 
puhlio highway &^re not bound to exereise the st^ae degree of 
ears while in the street thi»^t i^ould be required of ordinary 
pedestrians '^"^ nevertheless auoh per eons are required to use 
reasom^ble oare to avoid being run over." Also, in Smith v. 
Bailey . 4A I.Y. Supp. 666, the oourt said, "Undoubtedly those 
persons who are engaged in the streets in the publie serviee 
oannot exercise the same diligeuee in getting out of the way of 
passing vehieles as those persons ean v^o are simply crossing the 
streets and avenues; and it oannot be expeeted that they should 
bdoause if their time were ta^i^en up by loojcing out for ooming 
vehioles it would be impossible for th«u to oarry on their vorlc. 

W^ bti - i\^£t1^ 9&S i 

>'9'0» to 

-xeoi; a HI 

,?»« S^9t%9 . 

je.iii Tf- 


Tli9y oannot, howoTor, li« racicloss. They i&r« looiuid to uae r«wk«0Ba1»I« 
«ure In aeeiclng to t^Told the cUuagera by which th«y ^re Borroonded.'* 

It is olain«dL on behe^lf ol Xbm Atfen&aut that th« driTer of 
tho uutemoblle vvundod hia hoira «ind tht^t the plti-intlff should hare 
gotten oat of the wtiy* fhc^t, heweTer, is disputed. Xhe witne«« 
Willit^ms testified th&t no signal of any jcind was giyen, and the 
testimony of the plaintiff, himself, tO. though soiaewhat confusing 
on thbt stthjeot, nevertheless, seeas to intio&te thbt the blow 
which he reoelTed and the soitnd of the horn took place about 
sittultaneously* But that whole subject was considered by the 
trial Juclge and he passed upon it fuTortibly to the pli^intiff • She 
plaintiff wt^B entitled to be on the street wjiwre he was und, &% 
the tl#e in question, he wus doing his duty, mnA it is our opinion 
Xhf^t from the eridenee the trit^l judge w£i,s fully justified in 
concluding thut the driver of the trucJfc wis negligent und thi>t 
the pluintiff was not guilty of contributory negligMice. 

AS to the duBiages; She injury consisted of the crushing of 
the dist&l joint of the little finger, on the right h&.nd, resulting 
in a fr&cture of the bone* lor* Morris testified tbat he treated 
the finger froa HoTSliber li^,l»17, until Jc.2tu^ry &,1916, in ^11. 
about &6 tiJBea; that the medical eerrioes were wotth |b0.00 but 
that he charged 4:6b ,00; that the whole of the right h^nd up to 
the wrist was put in a splint in order to deaobilise the finger. 
She plaintiff at the time of the injury wus earning iif&,^6 a day 
and was woriLing eight i^ours a day, six days a weeic. Besides his 
doctor's bill he was c^rged ^Si,OQ for «ja •x^nxy exbimination and 
froB ^Ib.OO to ^^0.00 for medicine. She plaintiff w&s evidently 
out of woric froa Heveaber U,1917, until about April 6, li»16, and 
•apparently, owing to the injury to his hand. She trial judge 
figured that the plaintiff had lost UX weeks work and that that 



loM, %Qg9tii»x witk %h» luediotil bad »«aieine •a3)«aB«8, would 
aoouut to tobottt tf4t>0.00, aad h^rUi^ in aind th« p&ia b-oA. 
aufieriiig, entered jud^ont for ^t>00,00. w« *tjpe of the 
opinion th&t there wae no error oowtitted in fixing the 
amount ul ^img9B ta^t |£00.00. 

Finding no error in the reeord the judgaent Is aitiraea. 


O'Connor and 'Thomson J* J. oonoux* 


14 • 24f9f 


mmu. Slavonic OA'smttc wneM, 

m MryomUan. and CtfrtUnOYAL AMB J 
• MrporaUoB, laOBAXL CXGBUCAR, / 
Mid JCHS ILJthLAmmL, US CXerk of/ 
tlw Svp«ri9i^ Ooujrt of Oook :jcun.iV« 




m.mi^titt in Kigr|^ ^ I , A* U & ^ 

JfK* Jti:JII{I»! O^CCirifC^ ««llT«r«d thv opiaien ^f 
thf> oourt* 

t\m Bouih E»X«Toaio Cftthello Union, « f«2«igB fratcr- 
oaI ••oittjr* nut}i0rij»«d to <lto lm«in»«ft in this &tAt«, fil^d 
« ^ill to r««tmiii th« <i«f«ndftnt» Stoliort K. L. Br»oko, *■ ad* 
ainifttmter i|o bonin n»n of the •otnto of Tronic Modooh, d«ot«n* 
•d, frcoB proo««utlnf; t«o tnlt« in tlw sfunioipal ourt of Chi«i«;«a 
ftnd prmying that oottplainnnt ba daaraad to h^ tho own«r of «ix» 
taan ««rtifi«i*t«o of dopeait ttad ana draft. After iaouao wmrm 
jainad tha cmlu«« «raa rcfarrad to ttaa llaatar who took tha ari* 
danea and raportad* H^ raaoanandad ihat a daoraa !»• antarad 
as prajrad for in tha bill* Tha daoraa waa aooordlncly antarad 
to r«Ter»a which daf^ndant. Brooka* as adminiatrator, praaa* 
otttao thi« writ of arror. 

Tha raoard diroiaaos that oaMpiainnnt, soutk idJKf»ai« 
Catholio Union, is inoarporaUd uno«r tho Xaaa af ttea &tata af 
MiMaaaata and vaa authoriaad to do >>uoin«iBc in this uUttm on 

MKl after June 1, 1915s that obi» 9f th» effiotrt i^rOTi^ed for 
V i^« 1qr«l««» ««« kfwvii «• &ttpr«BW auardisa, an<i %)m% tit* 
dco«ttS«4 Tmuik M*dfh 9imB tiia« prior to Hlo dOftUi w»s dtOjr 
•loetod to that office and aotod a« oaoh up until tli« tlaui 
•f hla doailii tJaat whan aniy m«»l>or of th« (hiloa died loaTlag 
ninor holra for whott no jjiaardian «aa appointed , it waa tho 
ouataai of tha Union to r«mit to tha St^romo Qttardian, Frank 
iiadaali, irimtoTor funds wt» dua oue^ niaora, to bo held Igr 
hin a« Buoh of floor until th«!^ eeuld bo lo^alljr turnod oTor 
to tho ainor bonaflolariaa; that at dlvora tlmoo aixtaon 
WMbara of tho Union diod loaviac odnor hoira for wltion no 
lagal guardian h&d boan apj>oint«d» and in oaoh inetaaoo tha 
aoMuat of tho inouranoo waa oont to iS/^odaah aa Suprano Ouardi* 
ian; that upon roeoipt of tho moni^ by him* or vithin a dajr 
or two th«»reaft«r« h« purcAiaoad at ou<sh diT«ira timoo tho six* 
taa« ear tifioa too af dopeait in ooatroTorajr; Uiat boforo ha 
diad, Ootabor 10, 1912, ^ >*ad In Mo poaaoRSiioa ooaa t4<^0.0C 
balonglag to eortain oChay i&iaor benof i oiari eo vhioh raonoy ho 
had rooontly roooiTOd front tha Union* and that ha roQueotad 
that tho maniqr iMi iakan to tho bank and oxahangod for a draft 
yayabla to tho Auairian eonaul. Vhio wao dona tho day Bf 
hia d'ath but afior ho diod* A fov daya t>w>raaftor llede8h*« 
vidoa auggoaied that thla draft ba oxolntngod for oao payabla 
ta :£odaah*a aueooaaer in tho Union* vhioh waa dono. shortly 
aftor Modoah*o doath tho proa^nt aetmaal tttr tho adodaiotra* 
tar* who werm than roproaontin^ tho ootato* took tho &»attor 
of th<^oo oortifioatoa and th<» draft up with tho offioiala of 
tho Union aa to haw tho invontoiy in th« doeaaood*o ootato 
aheuld be praparad ooaoomlng than. Thoroupoa oouaool pro* 
yarod and filad an inventory montioniag tho oortifioatoa of 
dapooit and tho draft aa property hold in truot by Modoah 


«• S»9rmm auardiftii. T)D»r« van no disput* at t.h»i tin* 
ttmx tto« praiNirt/ <U4 na% )»«loag to tl»« ««t«t«!i of %1m 4«»» 
••a»*4« and it ««• ims'<^«4 that all of it b« t«ura«4 ever 
to tho Ufiloa upon pajr<^nt by tho tlnion of fX60*00« vhioh 
•l»IMir«ntljr waa t* g* %«««rd defragring tha axpttnaa* of a4- 
■inistiratiott. A ArmtX tor this amount im« axe ou tad and 
taadarad to oounaal for th« «8tata« who th^raup^i proaantad 
a patition w th« Probata oourt aaklng laava to twiTi tMa 
property «T«r to tha Union, and on ttaroli Srd, X9XS» an order 
vaa aooordingly antarad. Aftar this it aaemo that eounaal 
for tha adainiotrator dOBumdad $360.00 in liau of tha $1&0«00 
which had la«an tandarad )tmt not aeoaptad* hafera the aifaainia* 
tratar would turn ev^r tha eertifioataa and tha dmft« I'o 
thia tha Onion agraad and forwarded a dumft for tha aoiotmt 
danandad whloh waa tandarad tr oounaal ftr the adaiaiatratart 
whioh after aoaa d««Xay wan rafuead, and at Utai tiaa it waa 
etated that the aAainietrator would turn ftTor the oartifi* 
oataa and the draft upon p«^jr»ent of ISOO.C^O, whioh the Union 
•yparentljr rafuaed to da, Uay 22, 1914. th^^ Probata oourt 
aatarad an order on the petition of the adaiai^trator author* 
ising Ma to h«^iB two auita in the Uuniaipal Oourt «f Chi* 
aag* acainat the two hanka w)m> iaouad the Qertifieataa and 
the 4i»ft to •nSitr99 aalleotioa on thaa. Prior to the filing 
•f tha ouita hoth hanka had refuaad to sake payaant an theea 
•Uigationa to tha adainiatrator* Xt aXaa a^peara that aoae* 
time during tha proae«rdiag in the i>ro1»ate oourt the Union 
filed ita daia againat the eatate for the aracunt of ihe oar» 
tifioatao and the draft, whioh dlaia waa aftarwarda dianisaad 
for want of prooaeutien. Aftarwarda this hill wae filed ta 
raa train tha proaaaiitiaa ^f the euita in tha Jtualaipal Court 

•nd praying that the Union be daaraed to he tha awner of tha 
•trtifiaataa and yte draft* 



A p«iiit«n f)»r tj^ rtmorml of torn aAralnietrtttor ma on 
hffarl»it Jftiwaigr 89, 19X6, b«for« 3^^t0p» Horacr of ihc »roy>m%9 
OoxirX raA inoldientalljr iii* qu««tien of the ownorohip of th««« 
e«rtifleat«« *nil ftxmfi wm sono into. m% i»M«^ iimo JtAdjgio 
a»iraor otaiX to ooanool for ih(! ateii^otvfttor ttoot it nao 
l»orf*otly »|tpftroat tliot this property diet net boioBg to tlw 
oototo but Volottgodi to tho Uaion. Of oouroo it io th« X«v tb* 
if tlkoro i» A dift]>ut« b«tw««n th«> odadnietroter m»A m third 
fMurtjf »o to v^ethor o«)rtAin ]»rop«rty holongod to tb« Potato 
or to the third pmrt^ th« Frohoto Court h»o no jariodiotiow 
to try ottfdi on iotuo, hut tho i^mrties eust be roXogotod to 
tho proper fenm, $m4 it ie ofipMreiit that this ie the re»ooa 
wijjr « opooifio order direeting the eidteiaiotrator to turn 
%M» property oyer to the Union eno Xator oorreotod so ao 
to ehev that Xeave vaa giTen tl^ adminiotrator to do oo. 

It 9mmm to he th« adiaini«irator*8 position that 
the non^e r^eeiYod froM the Union V l^mnk tfodooh in his 
lifetijoo aa Snpreno Qnardian wore aingXed with hio omi fund* 
and, therefore, that the property of the Union oonXd not ho 
speoifiaaXX/ identified andi eonoo<3uentXy the Union wao not 
entitled to a dooree in ito favor, An<l a fnrther canton* 
tion ooewa to ho that eineo the oortifioatoo of depooit 
here tho name of Trmvk ttodnoh, aupr^Jte Guardiwi, thi^r ho- 
Xongod to hio ootato. Vhoae oententiono irer<^ not euetained 
hy the Maotor nor are they auotained }a^ the orideneo, it io 
OXoar to ue fron a oonoideration of all the eridenee that 
theee funds heXencod to the Mnion and were heXd hy Vraidc 
iiodosh as an offieer of ttet union and, therefore, the dooree 
amarded in fMror of tho Union wm» px9p«r and the onXy on« 
that eouXd ho entered. In faot, ne oXaia of any nerit soenn 

to half b««n mdl« th»i th«jr b«lons»d to the ««titt« at luiy 
tin*, «nd it $kp99AT* that dalivary of than to %hM union «•« 
aot Huida for th« ro^^oon that th« Union would not pay tho 
IQOO.QO daaaandod^ 

Th« adittlaiBtmtor appointed h;^ tho Prohato Court 
waa John Kranjoo, Suhaofiuontly he diod and Elmar 0. Rathfon 
vao appointed to »uoe«r«d him. Ij^ter on Hathfon died and on 
Augiuot 14, 1916 « the prtioent ad^inietrator ^ ^ni« inon wis 
appointed. He interranod in the inetant oaeo Cotoher 7, 1916, 
The eaae vaa not referred until Vebruaiy 80, 1918, end the 
firet eridenoe me taken hefora tb» Maater Mar eh 19, 1918. 
The )ia«ter*a feen were taxed at |8X4,^C and deereed to he 
paid hy the adoiaietrator and in default thc^reef tm exeou* 
tiOA ieeued. COBq^laint is aonde that the ehuieellor 9TV<L 
in allowing the aaeter |30C*0C for epeelel eerria^^e in the 
eaee at the rate of 9&«C0 per hour for sixty boure. Trcsaa 
an ejMainatiea »f th» entire r9mr4i we think the allewanee 
wae warranted* It waa error, hewoTer* to award an execution 
a^piinat the adninietrator ae eueh. The proper order la 
that payiMnt W aiade in due oouree of adtainietration. But 
eounoel for the anion etate that theae ooete ehould be taxed 
agalaat Rohert X, L« Brooke indlTidually heeauee, ae he mf 
gttoa, it ie apparent that thie euit haa heen HaJlioioueljr and 
wrongfully proeeeated without any aaublanoe of merit, and 
that in eueh oaee it ie proper to aeeeea the ooete a^ainet 
the indiTidual, In ifarahall. Adeur . ▼. Ooleman . 187 111. fttM, 
in paaaing on the ^eetion now under ooneideration the oourt 
eaid, (p. 586) "The offiiplaint ie asade that the eoeta were 
tasuid a^ainet appellant p(»reonally and net againet him ae 
adninietrator. Thia aetion of thr lower oourt wae proper 

1l««MiMi th« «ostft •t thi» ,>ro0C<^41ag hair* ]b««tt 9*«»«<S tqr ilM 

ii«t«r in rw0l^ to th« oont^nUon that th« «•«%« abouM IM 
t«x«d a«Aiiist Uio «iMiaictrfttfir s>trfi&nally bea:;tt»« the vuit 
iMft 1»««n vroncfttlly pro9«Qui«d Mgrt» "flmi vuit t« r«9<rr«r 
•a tli&sc o«riifi«tmtt«* «»• inst>ltut«4 )3yr t2k« »4ttlBietnLt;*r 
aXttr first $«tUng cia vrd^r frou t)i« fT*lNii* :^urt« th« 
UMimi «sKi tiM lMu«k iNiifct ft4faiiiltt«t} tlft9 r%h% »f tit* «teititiitv»* 
t«x> %e «ttQt}««4l and rtt««T«r tte« Amount (tu« ujpen thft vtaiWMmi 
•f olalB la the imit miv pendiajs in tlie Huoiial^aX «»urt, Tmil 
Vgr Its Mil ••ilet to r«>»inin tli^ ft4]Bini»traLt«r trou p«rfex»> 
i.BC lis 4utgrt •»«( lUMlar Mtdbi oir(n»istrijEke«& it vnui His duty 
•ad a* nagliftcnoc ajr Mdioa «m >• o)iaxs«4 ie plaintiff ia 
ari«r«* th» rafaranoa tJaara ssada to %hm ardar of th* Prab&ta 
aaurt i« tha or<k«fr autliarisla« tha adaini atsratar ta liasia 
tha aulta i» tte iJuniaiyal aourt aa ilia aartifiaataa wid tlia 
draft. It i* *alaar ta ua ttet if all tha f«ota vara Inraueiht 
bafara tha £'roh«ta O^ixrt tm mkiaan ard<vr aev^M haT« baaa «Btf"i^ 
•A far tha imrantaxgr axyi^Mal/ etatad that tha propartjir did 
aat halaag ta tha aatata. Aad th« faat that na dafanaa aauld 
h« aada to th« aaita ia tha Munieip^l oaurt ia m ana^ar far 
that ia th« raaaen wh^ anaitjr aaaiaaad jariadiation in thla 
aasa. wa thiak it alaar that tho aaat« iaaurrad ia thio oaaa 
axaa»t tha fil^ag faa 9t |10«CM9 and 119,00 n^&icdi ««a pmi^ 
ta tha ahariff , wmT9 all hra^ht ahaut ly- pl&intiff ia wrr^t 
whioh ahould hava haaa avoided %y turaias or«r tha yraparty 
ta tha Uaion. In th«aa airaiaaat>aaoaa • uodar tha autharitgr 
•f tha aiarahall aaaa, tha fei4«2G aaata iaovurrad hafara tha 
Matter aheuld ha taxad a<aiaat Bahart IR, t, Brai^a iadiTidualljr, 

m ««• mpw^imUii atetaltttrttWr Js, ^, ft lt «»n about • ymr «aA 
0B« JbaXf iMfttr* tuay 9t this «x|i«ai»« im» iB«urr«<i «n4 taaA 
moyX* tltt«, Xlmntf9r9t to iiiY#eti«At« th« ncrlte, (tf «M»ur»«« 
if )i« wftft •Imply ff«llowiii« th« »4Tio« «f Ms oi»uii»*l, U»t 
is • oMtter to h9 mASumf4 bstveen tiMst, btti iv <mniMi V« 
dens in this prs«««dln#, 

TiM» dsorse 9t ths Ou|)<»rier Court of oook i^jottntgr is 
afflmsii in all rtspsois oxosyt «« to tlM tAxinc of tlM 
|614*8C, and as to susli It is roversod osid r«Miiido4 to tte 
Superior CSsurt whitik diroctioas to tox th«r«« oosts •goiast 
ilobort S.X., Brooks* indiTiduoiijr. 

msfwaaaa» xh yAHY; oua 
imwmai with oxRBC7z<arB« 

72 - 253i7 

?. 7. OUHHI^aHAH, 

Appellant, /) 

doing bu8in98S uiv|«r thet Aeu:s» 
and style of A. K.^ Clark/& 
Ooa^aQjr, \ 





l.ft. ^S 

MR, JUSTICE O'eOMOR deliTered th« opinion of 

the oourt. 

Jr>l&intiff brought suit against the d^fondanto 
to recoTor #11 75* 00 wliioh h« olaiauid was das hiai undsr a 
vrittsn coatraot for lalaor and aatsrials furnished the 
defendants under the na»0 and style of A. R. Clark & Com- 
pany, At the dose of plaintiff's oase there mis a direot- 
sd Terdiet In fawr sf defendants to rsTerse which plaia* 
tiff prose outss this appeal, 

Plaintiff *8 olaia Is based on a balance due hia 
for lathing and plastering certain flat huildings under 
a written oontraot which he entered into with A. R. ClmrTt 
k Ceaq^aay, The affidarit of merits set up that defendants 
were not partners but that A* R, Clark is Coapany was a eor* 
poration and consequently whatoTer elai^ic plaintiff had was 
due and owing net from defendants hut from the corporation. 
The oontraot reoites that it is hetwe«n A. H. Clark & Com- 
pany, "parties of the first part, and P, F. Cunningham, 
party of the seeoad part**, and is signed, "A. R. Clark & 
CO, (Seal)"» and "P. F, Cunningham (Seal)*, The considera- 
tion mentioned in the contract is #8676 en which $1500 was 

i^ SAl 


paid XeaTing a balance of ^^1175. 

Plaintiff testified that he had done lathing and 
plastering for the defendants for about flft««n years; that 
all of the oon tracts were signed by A., R, Clark & Ooovany 
and that none of them were signed by the three individual 
defendants. He further testified that after the work was 
ooapletsd under the terms of the written eontraet he demanded 
payment of the three defendants on different oooasions and 
that they said they did not haye the money at the time with 
which to pay him; that the defendants J« Milton Trainer and 
Wallace dark told him on one occasion when he asked for 
payment that they did not have the money then but that they 
would giT* hira in pt>grment seme real estate which they Iiad on 
thf^ South Side; that afterwards A. B. Clark took hira out and 
they looked over this property, two houses, and that plain* 
tiff told thsm he could not handle saiae but that he wanted 
payment in cask; that he had n^rer heard that A. H. cn.ark 
& Company w&c a oorporation until the defendsnts filed their 
affioaTit in this case; that he had worked en a number of 
buildings imder contracts which he had made with A. R. Clark 
St. Company and that wherever such buildings were built on 
property owned by Wallace Clark and J. Milton Trainer they 
were always out looking over the property and seeing that 
the work was properly done; that on ona or two eocasions 
tfallaee dark gave him his personal ehe<dc in payment of 
work done althovigh most of the tixae payments were made bgr 
A. H. Clark & Company. 

Ve think plaintiff made out a prima facie ease and 
that the court erred in directing a verdict for the defends* 


■at*. ISrmn it the defendante were not actually ]fHTtn*VB m» 
between them««lTe», yet we think the evidmoe tended to ei^w 
they ee did bualneee with plaintiff as to be liable to him as 
partners. In gjeher v. Bowles* SO 111. 396, the aourt said, 
"Partnerships eannot alwa^e be proTed by written artioles. 
In faet, ia rtirj many oases writings do not exist * ^ * in 
sueh oases, and in all eases, the rule is, if a person suffer 
hie tuak9 to be used in a buainees, or otherwise hold himeelf 
out as a partner, he is to be so considered, whaterer isay be 
the agreement between him and the ether partners. » » » whether 
they are partners as to others depends on their conduet. " 

*A party permitting his name to be used, or hold* 
ing himself out as a partner, will be equally responsible 
with ether partners, altliough he may receive no profits, for 
the ooBtraGt of one is the contract of all." See also Poole 
▼. Fisher, 62 111. 181. 

In the instant eaee we think the court should 
hare required the defendants to go forward with their OTiuenoe. 

The Judgment of th* Munioipal Court ef Chieage is 
rereraed and the cause ramaitded. 

BsvsBSEo ASJ3 Kmnsmo. 


:^i 8^1 

•1 • 25389 


CdEPAJmr, ft ooxttoratlen, 



a o«rporatien» / ) OF CHICAGO, 

. 1 

219I.A. 655 

MR, ^QnO< O^QOKTSm d«liTered th» opinion •t 
tti« couri. 

]^ t}ii» app«fil plain Uff H9<tkm to r'^versA a Judg* 
aent ef thft i^unieip&l Oourt &f ^iiaa^^o, 

7h« faat* so far a« it is 0>at«ri«l to stats thsn, 
atirs tiiat plaintiff, Clarice-MoKlroy l^blisMoe Oo«pany, a 
<3« operation, dia sosie printing work for Julius Shap«m, awl 
vh«n lis «»s ind<%1»ted to tn«n in ths eua of abvut $800, thsy 
rtt^tt*st«4 that th« bill bs paid or Kcokft ssourity givsn b«« 
fore further work voul4 be done* The eupon Bhnpera, who «ao 
oaq^loyod hy defendant, Ohioago Mebrow Institute, « corpora- 
tion, assigned to the woodlacsn fruet and Savings Bank for 
plaintiff $600 which wftR du« him fro» defendnnt. Jt>efendan% 
was notified of this assignment ^na v?aa requested to pay 
this amount to the bank for the plaintiff but disrogardod 
this d«Band and shortly afterw&rds paiidi to i>hap«m #588«5C, 
1^1 ch was the exaot amount It owed hia at the time of the 
assignnent. Afterw-'^rds this t&uit was broi^ght. 

in addition to the foregoing faots, the evidenoo 
showed that a few months after th<e assigBment and after the 
payment by defendant to Shapem of the $S88,60, plaintiff in 


anothsjr suit in th» iteiiioit»«l Murt r<?eoTer«4 m iudemvat 
ag«la«t shap«ra for $X84l.g7, It breught gajmiehm«nt oa 
tlni* jttdgpi«nt «na pervcd dcfendaunt here a« g«rnliih*«. th» 
gamiahe* answered that it ov»d Slsapera |110 and on this 
aamrar a j«d|^«nt «aa entered fer this amount and it vas paid. 
As «e undfTsiand the record .ha trial Judge held that the 
Judgment entered in thi^ gamlahmeat yreoe^dljigs vas res judie* 
ata ef the matter in oontroversy in the inst«mt ease apparent- 
ly en the theory that if the defendant, Ohieaga Hehrev Xasti- 
tttta. eved Shapera the 1538.50 in addition to aii> ^110, it 
should hare bee determined in the gamielmcnt prooei^dings* 
and this is the argument made lagr oounsel for df^fendaat here* 
this vas error. After the aaaigsuuint was made and no tie* 
giTen to the defendimt. i t eould not then paj £lhapera in 
▼iolation of the assignment and netio<^, but to dieoharga it* 
self from this liability It vouJid be required to pay the 
bank for plaintiff. Therefore, whan the Ohieage Hsbrev 
Institute answered as garnishee it eould not there truthfully 
•ay that it owed Shapera 1888. 50. It follows that the Judg- 
ment entered In the gamiohment easa was not res Judioata. 

Vhs defendant also argues that the evidence s^iowa 
that the #588.50 was paid by it to dhapera after its repre- 
soniiativo had oenferrod with the bank and with a representa- 
tiTO of the plaintiff and was told that neither tiio bank 
nor plaintiff had any dials against Shapera, £>nd, therefore, 
faymeat by it io Shapera was Justified. th» trinl court 
found against than on this question of foot and it is not oen* 
tenAad that this finding is against the manifest weight of the 
eTid«noe. This being true, of course, ww dannot disturb sudh 
finding. Howerar, we haTe oensidered the erid^inoe and think 

mil — 

'» ■•■«bi 

ftrt 1 

th« trial eeurt ««« JusUfi«4 ia ih« finding k»A«, 

Defendant further sontditdcd that the afi«ignn«nt 
was lnTBli4 for tl&« rcaeon thait a p«rsoB eaxnet apXit up a 
olaim he hat hy aselgning a purt of it. It is suffieieat 
to say in anavar to this oont^ntloa that at th« tiao tha 
aoaignneat vao ma4« all of the Indebtedness due fre«n defead* 
aat to Shapora was aaaigaed, for it ie stipulated that at 
thai time therr wae due fron defendant to Siatpera #68S«50« 
Yhe faot that he afiervarda continued to work for defendant 
and that it beoMuee furtlwr indebted to him aaa in no mgr 
effeet the Taliditjr of tlit aaeigxiaMrat, 

It fall ova that the pajnaaat af the $8adlSG %9 
shapera vaa nat warranted and since thero «as no jury trial 
and the anouat is t»i in dispute, it is net neeeaearjr to 
revaad the oauaa* hut the judgnent of the Muaieipal Court 
af Chioage i^ll h? rerersed and ju4ga«nt entered in this 
court ia faTor of plaintiff and against defendant far tSas.SO* 

XArLOH, 9,J« AMD THOtSOlI, J, C(Matm. 


us • 



J. H. HA^IH8» \ / ) QOm: OOUITY, 

219I.A. 655 

XR, 3W5T10.1 ©'COiywOR deliTwr^d the opinion of 

.Plaintiff brought suit ai^Ainst defendant to re* 
ooT«r ((Umaiceft «lalMted to )WY« been Buf f<»r«d by hia ea ao» 
oount of being otraeit \ty d«^fendant*8 autonobil*. Theri^ was 
a T«r<iiet and JudgiMnt In his faTor for 1^825 • to r^ Terse 
vhiah dofandsnt presaotttes this c^peal. 

Th# r^oertt di80lose« that about one o'clock In 
th« afteraooa of Soptnsbar 5, X916, plaintiff was wallcing 
south on ^ne weet oicio of kiohlgan BoulOTard, Ohleage, «md 
as ho was orosslag Jaakeen BoulOYard* whleh runs aast and 
wsst, d«f«ndant*8 autosiobila which was bain^ drivan south in 
Mlehigan Boularard turned waet into Jackson BouIOTard and 
struok and injurad the plaintiff. It !» far thi>sa injuri<«s 
that plaintiff sues, 

Xridonoa aff^red on bahalf of plaintiff tendod to 
show that th«r€> wars a graat itaany automobilas on Miohlgan 
lauloTard at ih^- time in quastion and also a great nuaber 
•f parsons walking on the wast sldawalk of that street a- 
crocs Jaokson; that there was a polieesAn regulating traffic 


m% ih« lnt«rt«etloii of ih« t«M» «tre«ts •t^ndiag umur th« 
e«at«r of Mlehigan »t tbM north sid^ of Jttokitoas Uuit ho te4 
sigaaXlod for the seuthhouBd trftffia on Mohigan to oiop, 
vhich was demo; that the plaintiff and a »u»h«r oi peri^no 
walking oeuth on the voot oidisfW&Xk Btepp«>d at jffaokBoa at 
the offio«r*» aignaX; that aftor a short opa«* or timo th« 
traffic vas reloAoed and plaintiff a tartod aero&e Jaokaoa 
Boulorard* vhen defendant* » automohilo» wMch tme beins 
driTon hy d«>fe!ncaAt*K wife, oame south in Mi^tigaa and arouAi 
thf» oomar into Jaekson* otrut^ the plaintiff, threw hia to 
the ground* ran OTor his feet, and injured hia. Before the 
automohilo eouM be stopped it ran op on the north oidcwalk 
of Jaokoon }i(oul«vard west of Miohigaa. the eildenoe further 
tended to ohow that plaintiff was imlking aorose Jaokooa 
Boulerard and juot hefore he stopped off the nidewelk into 
the roadway of that etreett h^ looked to the oast but saw 
no autonoMlec; ooiaing frcxn that diraotion; th&t as ha wao 
about to the eeater of the roadwajr defendant* k autoMOt»il« 
Rtraek hia. The eridenee also tended to ithow that defen4» 
ant* 8 autoroobilo was hsing ArlToa south in south in Miehigaa 
Boulevard and turned around th^ oojrner into Jaoksoa at the 
rats of about ton or twelTS ailee per hour; that it oaaa 
up to th<? north side of Jaeksoa Just about the tiao that the 
effieer released the scuthbound taraffis on Michigan and, 
therefore the auteiaobilo did not stop but oentinuftd around th« 
oomer into Jadkson, 

On behalf of defendant, he and His wife testified 
that plaintiff was o(;aing froa the soith to th«« north across 
Smaknon Boulerard; that their aatoaobile when it r^^ached 
Jaekeon, stopped In aoeordanee witi^i the tiignal of Vhe officer; 


thai aft«r i,hi^ officer rel««a«d Xhm iraffle li 6tartc4 wy 
filowly and proe««4«4 around the oomttr at ih« rata of four 
to oiz ttlltta par hour. 

jmtfinAaOX eontande that th« evid^^nea thowo tteitt 
the plaintiff wan guilty of oontri^utosy aegligenoe oinoo 
tha da/ vaa el«ar and be did not look to the «a«t before 
going into t)» roadway of Jatie&oa Boularard. ;^e think thia 
eontantian i« not auetainad \^ the eTid<^nee» for the plain* 
tiff teatifiad that ha d'jLd look to the oaat before oteppiii^i 
into the street. The polioe officer only testified that 
plaintiff did not look to the aaat for approaahing anteaoMlao 
irh«n he sav hiia, vhieh vaa after plaintiff w»e alsout three 
feet off the sidewalk into the etr^^t. ^a think thie question 
wae properly one for the jury, iieidenreieh ▼. MSSSSSXL* ^^ 
111. 499. 

Dtfendr^nt alee eontende that the court erred in 
glTiag Inetruetion fe. 7 on behalf of plaintiff. Xhat In- 
struetion told the Jury that the etatuta of thia State pre* 
▼idea in aubetAnee that no person shall drire a aotor Yehide 
v^on any publie highway at a greater rata of speed than it 
raaaoaabla and proper havii^ regard to the traffio and uae of 
the way, •r ee as tc enuanger th@ life or linb of any person; 
that it further proTidea that if a motor vehiole in going 
around n corner or eurra in a higi^aray when the operator*! 
riaw is obstructed does so at a greater rate of speed than 
aix ailaa p^r hour, sued* fact shall be priata fasie evidenoe 
that the Tehiole is running at a greater rate of speed than 
Is reasonable. and proper, hsTing regard to the traffic and 
use of the way. The crgument ist that tnit iBHtruotion waa 
aialeading in thai it was not sup > or ted by the evldenee; that 

■>'■:■ . ■ i%i$99^ 

i«?$J' . 


th« rridene« sho-««d that th« plaintiff waa walking south 
ca the «««t eidewAllc of Xioblgsiii B«ul»Yftrd into JaoJcson 
Beulward all the tinu» in plain view of th« louthbound 
traffiOf that there was notidng at tht" aorn'^r or eurro 
to obstruct the operator* a Tiew an«l« tlierefor«t ^^ !»• 
struct! on was orronaous. With thie eonteatlon w« oannot 
agrea. 1%« statute olearly applies wheraror a tnoter T«hidLe 
Is baing drirea around k. corner and tli^e iri«»w ie obetructad. 
In tha Instant oaaa there was a large offloe bull ding *t ths 
northwast eoraar of Jaokson and Mlehlgan Boulevards^ Xher«»« 
tore, defendant should not hare game around this eomer at 
a greater rata of spaed than six alias per hour. If h« had 
not done so. the oar would haTo been unuer control. li\irther» 
it laust be preauBiad that plaintiff loiew of thie lav and, 
therefore* wauid no I be required to use tha eaaa degree of 
ear* that he would be required to use if the statute per* 
mitted the rounding of a oorner at & greater rate of S9e«>d 
tJten six miles per hour. We think the inet ruction was 
applioable and thi%t th^rt; was no error in giTing it. 

JMKfeadaRt next oontenda that the de«aaratioa fails 
to state a ottuaa of aetioa and thst its aotion in arreat af 
Judgaent should hare been sustained. In support of this 
it is said that there is no allegation in the deelaration 
that defendant owed any duty to plaintiff, and that tnls is 
always a necessary elextent in a oaee sueti ae th«> one at bar. 
It is undoubtedly the law that plaintiff oould net reooTor 
in this oase if thf; d>'fenaant owed hia no duty, and if there 
was no suoh allegation in the deelaration. the judgiaent oould 
net be sustained. But upon an exaalnation of the deelaratiop 

\M ,»*!'*«'«* 


vc find tJsat vhll* ix. if, not. alleeed in •• many ^erds that 
d«f«a<laiit 0WA ft duty to the plaintiff, y«t v« think th« 
faeta «ll4»K«(i showed such to b« th« q«»«. Th« d«el«rRtioit« 
in aul^atana*, ttllfig«d th^at the plaintiff, whXl« in th« axar- 
oi»« of all du« oar« an<i oaution for his own oafoty, was 
waUcing aoresB Jaekeon Boulevard, the dofendctnt, oero* 
looaljr n«glig«ntljr« ^ma wrongfully ran his mitonoMlo around 
th« aom«r at a greater rat* of opood than wao proTldod by 
tho statu to, aacl that as a r«:8ult theroof plaintiff was in* 
jured. 3« think this Buffioi«nt. other oounte sot up o ihar 
noglicenoo whi oh It will net b<> n«^e«e8aiy to diseuso. 

Tho juolgm«ont of the Suporlor Oourt of Cieok aovmty 
is afflsai«d« 

^' ijrFIiilSKD, 


145 • 25399 



CITY oy Cflii:A(Jc, 



219I.A, 655 

HH, JU87XG;^< 0*CC^£r€>H <S<?liTered t>i« opinion of 
the oourt, 

Plaintiff brought suit s^alnst defendnnt to r«* 
cover daaai^eo for i^ersonal injuries d aimed to i>e<>n 
ouBtainod bjr him by reaaon of d(?f«n(i«nt, throagh ite agt^nt, 
n«gllg«ntly lifting the Bri« Str««t bridge over th^^ north 
branoh of th«> Chicago HiTer vhil« he was upon it. At Une 
elosto of plaintiff*6 t!fvi<i(moe th^ra was (*, dlreoted Tordiot 
in fteYor of defendant, to re>f^^.jc^^ wM oh {Plaintiff prosecutes) 
this appaal. 

7ho oeurt direoted tho verdiot a^piMuraiitljr on tha 
theory that the OYldenoe offered on «?bhRlf of plaintiff 
showed that Wie injuries suffered by plaintiff were brought 
about in part, at least, by his own neglig^ncft • that plain- 
tiff tMo s«ilty of contributory negligence. 

Zha evidonoe t<;nd8 to ehov that betirf^en 7:30 and 
8:0C o*olo<dc on the morning of BoTember 29, 1915, plaintiff 
who vaa driving an lee ^agoa east on Brie street, a eliort 
distanea naet of the bridge, stopped hit?, taaa beoauaa the 
traffic ahead of hia vae blocked by another t-^am thnt was 
unable to proceed 1^ rMtaoa of the alipperinesis of the 

- 3b£ 



bridge. It «n« & oold «ini»r .torning. Th«re wrr» h gr-^tit 

many teams paanlng effr t>i«< bridgt from both dir«>otion«» 

tlMMi g«ing «a«t wer« on the Bouth si<i« of the bridgo and 

thooo going west were en th« north side of the bridge?. 

flien plaintiff stepped hif team th«re was at least one other 

i«s« and wagon betw«(«n hla and the bridge. Mm want forward 

to assist %h^ driver of the i«sn that was stalled < n the 

bridge. Re spoke ic t}K bridge tender and secured fron him 

a shoTsl. He then %ent nearly andgot some oind^rn or aehest 

took a ahsTelful out on the bridge and spread them under tlfts 

Wttgeii snd horse or team that was stalled, and then helped 

push <.he wmgoa forward to enable th«: team to prooeed. He 

get some isore cinders ami was spreading them on the bridge, 

facing east at/time » when he heard soaieene say, *L00£ (jutl" 

W» felt the bridge a&oTing. It was of the single leaf jadlc* 

knife t/pe and opened fren \>h» west end. When he saw the 

bridge going V9 he ran toward the west end of it and when he 

got there that end of it was ten or fifteen feet in the air. 

In an ende^-vox %o save hiaself he juajred off and w&e severe* 

ly injured. 

The eridenee also tends to show that while plain* 
tiff was in the aet ef spveading oind'^rs on the bridge a tug 
esae along in the rlrer and blew its trhlstle for a nusber ef 
Binutec for the bridge to open, and that signal bells were 
also ringing to warn people tiiat the bridge was abo^t te 
open. Whether this boat whistle and vhe bells rang before 
plaintiff w«nt upon the bridge and continued thf;reafter te 
be sounded, or whether the whistle blew and the bells rang 
after he went upon the bridge is not dear. But in either 
erent, we think it inaaterial so far as the question before 





u» ifs (K>ne«rn«d, The •Tl<i^no# alao 8how«4 tJ^ai plaintiff 

h&d a 0^ pulled down obftr hie ear» and tiaat csonaequently 

h« ooald no I tear »« diBtlneil^ &« h« oth«rwis« laight. 

It furtter appears froai tJm eridenoe that tli9 bri<lg«tend«r 

»a« hlia on the brid^a, and th«re le further ffYid«>no« that the 

brld^etanetar vamed «T«r;^hody that the hridir« waw about to 


In these eirouaetaac^s v« tMak pXaintiff ma«ie Out 
a grljaa factie oase sxid it should have been 8ula«itte<i to th« 
«1ary. The bridge tender Knew the plaintiff was ^n the bridge 
spr< adlng aehes on th^ icy pmr^nent of the bridgo with hit 
faoe turned to the oaat and with a cap pulled A9fm OTor his 
eare. We think it clear that all reasonable minde night 
not reaeh th(» oonoluoion that plaintif w«e guilty of negli« 
genoe in failings to got off the bridge before It v!>^e raised 
and thftt the eourt errod in diroetiag the verdict. Lib by» 
M^eill A Ubby t. goefc . 282 111. 806. 

The Juti0Rent of th«» ^^uperior Oourt of Cook County 
is reTeroed and the oauoe re2Hando4« 

TA¥LtR, 1?,J. ivBD XEOM.Q(m, J. OC^COR, 

■ijt\k!t^ i^i>y T.<l S'f- 

154 • S54^ 

PHXLZF HSC1^» by DaTld B. Sehdlts, } 
his dul/ akthoris*d agent ii^thiB } 
b«Jtuilf, \ / ) 

App/llee. ) APFRAL ?RCiI 

AAMinBL ynuD, 


Appt^Xlant, j 

219 I.A. 655 

KR. JUSTICE 0*GGmOR delivered the opinion of 
the court. 

This vfts an aetien of foreilile detainer for the 
poeeescion of a hallway in a building known ae 208 Bouth 
State Street, Chioago. After a Jury had been eiapaneled and 
sworn, the attorney for the plaintiff and the attorney for 
the defendant eaoh made an opening statement of the oaee to 
the jury as to what the evldenoe would show. At the olose 
of the opening statement for defendant oounsel for plaintiff 
moTOd the court to instruct the jury to r^tturn a verdiot 
for the plaintiff, apparently on the ground that the state* 
ment did net show any legal defense. The oourt granted the 
motion and iastruoted the jury, and a Terdiot was according* 
ly returned. The oourt said, "Gentlemen of the Jury, on 
the statement of counsel for defendant it appears that there 
is no defeaso to the action, and you will sign a Tordiet 
for the plaintiff," It is quite apparent that the trial 
judge's attention was not called to the case of fietsch ▼• 
gletsch . S4S 111. 454. That ease holds that a rerdiot can 
not he directed on the opening statements of counsel. 

The jttdgnent of the Mimicipal Court of Chicago is 

rerersed and the cause resianded. 



!.&'i.n^ )!■ : .,. Sii^ 





62 • 263PS 

A. L. CLA^ & CCliPANY, IHC. , 
a oor^foratlon, 

\ Flaintiff /n ISrror, 


a eorpera^lon* 

I>t find ant in Brror. 




219I.A. 656 

id. jySTXC!'! 'i^&tSQM dellTer«<i the opinion 
•f the court. 

The plaintif > , a* L. Clark &. Ccapany, b«gan this 
a«tioB of th« fourth olass in the Municipal Oourt ef Chioagt 
•n 7abruary SO, 19X9. SuakBons wat? s«rT«(l, r«!tumabl<? arch 
10, and OB that date the defendant filed its appearanoa and 
sem&rad an order extending the tine for filing its affidarit 
of merits 10 days. On March 21, judgment 1»y default was 
entered in faTor of the plaintiff for the amount of its 
claim, 1498.75. 

Daring the forenoon of that day the defendant filed 
its affidarit of merits, without obtaining any order ef oourt, 
penal t ting it to do so, This was tm day after the extension 
of timo for filing the affidavit ef merits IwA expired. On 
April 29 1 i^ieh was 38 days after th^ judgment in faror of 
the plaintiff had heen entered, th€> defendant filed its iae<* 
tion to Taemte and set aside the judgtaent and two days later 
the oourt entered an order proriding that "said judgment he 
opened, that leaTO bo and h'^reby ie ^iren to the defendant 
to appear and make defense hf!rein, and that a trial of this 



oase Ite had. notvithstanciing «ald judgment, that said Judg- 
ment etand aa security and that exeaution herein 1»e atayed 
until the further order of this eevirt.^ The defendant prayed 
an appeal from that order, vhiedt the court r<»fuBed to grant 
and thereupon* thie writ of error vae sued out of this eourt, 
and thereby the plaintiff seeks to roYerse tha order referred 

Clearly the trial (tovirt erred in disturMng this 
judgment. Section SI of the Muni oipal Court Aot, (J,ft A« Far, 
3333} provides that if no motion is made to Taeate, set aside 
or modify a judgment of that court within 80 days after it is 
entered, sueh judgment "shall not be vacated, set aside or 
modified excepting om appeal* or writ of error, or liy a bill 
in equity, or by a petition to eaid iiuni oipal Court s«ttiR£ 
forth grounds for vaeating* setting aside or modifying the 
same which would be sufficient to cause the same to be vacated, 
set aside or asdified by bill in e<iuity: Provided, however, 
that all errors in fact in the proceedings in sueh ease, which 
might have been corrected at eoMion ls» by a writ of error 
eoram Qobis . may be corrected by motion, or the judi^Mint may 
be set aside in the manner provided by3a« for similar cases in 
tlw circuit court." Xhe petition filed in the oaee at bar did 
not saelc to correct an error in fact bat sought the vacating 
of the judgment by reason of the negligence of counsel. This 
is shown by the petition itself, whi eh atatf^e that when the d*- 
fen<iant was given an extension of ten dsys, from March 10, for 
the filing of its affidavit of merits, counsel for the defend» 
ant inadvertently noted the last day for the filing of the 
affidavit of merits, in hie lnwyer*s diary, under the date of 
March 21 instead of March 20, and neither the defendant nor 



ita counsel leamed of the entering of the judgment until 
a doput/ from the Htmicipal Court appeared at the dof«nd« 
ant*s plaoe of business , in oonneetion with proceeding* 
following the Judgment and more than thirty daya after the 
Judgment was entered. It will be seen that defendant's peti* 
tion to he sueeeasful omet have set forth grounds for Ta«aW 
ing the Judgment, '*vhi cih would he suffioient to cause th« 
•«B« to be Yaoated, set aside or modified by bill in •<}uity," 
It, howeTer* set forth no ouch grounds for it was based •»• 
tirely upon negligenoe. As this court bas recently had eeoss« 
ion to s«jr, the law is well settled that a judipteat in the 
Municipal Court will net be set ««ide after the tine fixed 
"by th«> statute for so doing, unless, it is made to appear, not 
only that the petitioning defendant had a good and meritorious 
defense but al »o that the judgment wsa in no Maxmtr eausc^d 
by any laek of diligence on his part. Aacrit^jan Surety Coapany 
of N.y. T, Bliec . 214 ill, App. 4©3. Xherefoa:^, eren If we did 
assume that the defendant in the ease at bar h&d a meritorious 
defense to the aotioa, as oontonded, neTortheless the Judg» 
ment haring been entered by reason ef the defendant's nogligenoa 
in failing to file its affidaTlt of meritt^ within the time allow- 
ed, the Judgment should not have been disturbed. It is oonteaAetf 
that the negligence of eeixns«l for the defendant should net ba 
imputed to the client, Sueh a eontentioa is without merit. 

It is urged by the defendant that the order in ques«* 
tion was not a final order, That order dirooted that the Judg«* 
ment stand as seoxirity hut that execution be stayed and the 
Jndgmont b« opened end leaTe be given the defendant to appear 
»nd defend, notwithstanding the Judgment. Both the parties. 

>U &iiV 


in their lBri«fs filed in thie oourt, tr«Rt the order as one 
Tacatine th« Judgment and properly so, for that ie what it 
vae in effect, Ae pointed out in City of Park lUtee t. 
Murphy ■ 256 111. 365, '*'JFhere a default ie set aside and 
a uoney Judgment is Taoated, the usual and proper praotioe 
ie to allow the Judgsaent reeerered to stand as a security 
for the payment of any siaount that laay ultimately he re* 
ceyered en a retrial of the ease, ana any liens that have been 
aoquired under the Judgment are retained until the fimil de» 
termination of the merite of the oontrorersy. ** In tJtiat cass 
a motion ms made to set aside a default and vacate a Jud^ 
ment, nearly a ye&r after the Judgmsnt was entered, 'Xhe 
court held thet thi^>re was no final jttdgm.ent inTolTod and 
that the order thf^re in question was not appealable and oh« 
serred thet the motion was not an independent original action 
*l»ttt was simply a step taken in the original proceeding, whioh 
Is autnerissd by seetion 39 of tne Practice Act of 1907. ** 
In the latexu aa^e of ^,r& n er ▼. Illinoi.s Cc^aaer 9I fd ^ ^f°^*-g r 
Assgoiiitlon, S60 111, 516, th re vrac liJcmrlso involred an 
appeal from an order va eating a default ani^ Judgiaent on motltm 
mad^ after the Judgi^-^nt term had expired. The <»urt held that 
the motion appealiitd from was 0|ke substituted for the \7rit 
of error cftram nohia (under see. 39) intended to allege errors 
in fact smi that unqueetionahly the action of the court in 
allowing the motion and raoating the Ju<3ginent was hased on a 
finding that th^re were such errors, ami th^t, such being the 
case, the law allowed an ap3«>Rl from the ordir as in any other 
case of final Judgiannt;, oitina '{it ghoiX l v. .-ang, lfS7 Zll, 452 
*"*^ ^rai tski ▼, i^r>crica n J'i-nBBffa [tSi' * ^^^ ^-^•'•» ^.^1. In the 
graner (Mtse the court saii that if a i^oia-t nete 3Pi<ie or v»» 


oatea » judgment otherwlee them under tlte motion suli«titut«<l 
for the writ ( coram nojbie) the orcl«r ie inter Xevutory and tho 
yartios auot await a final Judgment, from whioh an appaaX or 
writ of error wiX^ li«, citing Walker v. CliTer . 63 111. 199 
and City of Park Ridg*^ v » ;turphy * 258 111. 365, I'he oouxt 
thon ©\>»er?«» that in the v/ alker oaoo , "the judgment (raeated) 
was Toid for want of J«risdiotion apparent on the faoa of tho 
rooord aa a mattor of law, and the motion to set it aoido was 
for error of law and not for error of fact," iho court thon 
•ajro« "So, alBO, in Oi ty o f .gark Ri d^e ^ v, Mttrglor . auyra , a 
roaooii for vaoating the Judgmont was tnmt of proper eorriot 
•f notioo en IJurphy or hie agents, vMeh shewod a want of 
jurisdiction* " The writer of the opinion in the City of ParJc 
Ridgo cast * dlosented from the daoieion of the majority of tho 
eourt in the Cramer oaaa . In the oaso of Qallay ▼» Mathia . 
195 111. App. 170« a judguent of the li<'4tni oipal Court, was 
Taeatsd aftor the oxjiiration of 30 days from its date on a 
motion or pstitlon in the nature of a bill in equity. In 
that oase this oourt said, "Our oourts haTS hold suoh peti* 
tion to he in the nature of a separate suit, and that in sueh 
a preoeedittg an order setting aside a judgment is reTlevahle 
liy appeal er writ of error," citing the Cramer ease , supra , and 
Barnes t, C.C. Ry. Co. 18S 111, App. 148, The latter case 
cited the Cramer case and followed it, holding that an order 
Ta eating a judgment pursuant to a motion made und<?r the pre«* 
visions of section 89 of the Practice Aet, was a final and 
appealable order. Again in the case of Boyle t, gallows . 207 
111. App. 5, this oourt treated an oraer Ta eating a judgment 
ef the siunicipal Court, more than 30 daye after the judgment 
was entered, as an appealable order. The oourt there held 
that the petition filed, failed to disolose suoh grounds 





• 6« 

for tint vaORtlon of the judgment as would he sufficient t« 
mintaia & 1)111 in equity unUer the uaae olrcumstanoes. 

We therefore hold that under the law of thie fitato, 
a« laid down in the alaoYO deol&loRB, the ord^r sought to be 
roweroed hy this writ of error was a final order and sutojeet 
to royiew in this court T^ writ of error and we further hold, 
for the roasono heretofore referred to, that the Muniolpal 
coui't erred in allowing the motion end entering the order open- 
ing up the judgment, and therefore that order its revereed. 


TAYLOH, P.J. ANiJ 0»GCar^'Of.t, J, COICUR, 

• do 

94 • 8M19 

jam 1. muxymB* 


'APPEAL imcm, 


MH. JUsnCi: tmmMm il«XiTer«d ili« oi^inion of iim 


Tb* plaintiff brought XhiB aetlon ea «t ehe<dc glT«i 
him V the defendant, in th« sun Of f&00« which hf^ti not b«oii 
paid. Tho trial oourt raade a flndlai; for th« dofonaant an^ 
ontorod Jttdgnont aoeordingXy, to rororoo vhioh the plaintiff 
Itao porfeotod this apponl. 

l)r hin affidaTlt of morite the ctefenclAnt oot 19 
vant of considermiion and failure of con«id<^ ration* 71it 
plaintiff contende that while loth of theeo defoaoo* amy ho 
iBterpoood in the aamo oaeo , they muot ho ooparately plMtdod, 
and ho contenao that the oourt orred in oTorruIlag hie aotioa 
to oiriko the azaondod affidavit of nerlto fro» the flloo ho> 
oauoo it iontainod th«eo two ineoaoiotont dofoaoeo. fhio 
point io not toaahlo, a« it ai«;ht h« If this aotion were 
not la tho ilunioipal Court and the defoaooo ref tarred to had 
hoen inoorporatod in the eajoe plea, Suoh defeneeo ao theee 
May he inooruoratod, ao thi;oo are, in ooparato paraerapho 
of an aflidaTit of merite, filed in a fourth olaae aotioa ia 
tho Muaioipal Qourt, 





TiM def«ndant oonleads that this oa«« pr«»«ai» 
« premium between tmt persona with reference to forbear* 
anee between two ethers and tlmt th'^refore there was n* 
consideration for ih« glTlng of th« oheeic. 

The plaintiff introdueed the obecflc and thea 
rested, Th* defendant testified that tie van an off leer 
ef the Hilmer Oil Compsuiar vhidh had glTon the drent Itorthem 
Refininc Ckiapany seTeml preaisaorjr a* tea, acgresating 
M«SOO in amount, tlm plniRtiff mui president ef the latter 
eei^aniy and owned 9Z% ef its etook. There oeera to have Vena 
three no tee « the second falling due three days after the 
first and the third, threr days later. On the day the first 
nets fell due, the defend$!nt saw the plaintiff and told hia 
the Hihaer Cil Ooapany was unablt? te pay it. ¥he Miehtgaa 
ATonue ^Cmst Conpany held the notes when they fell due. tlam 
defendant told the plaintiff he had requested the Bank to ao» 
•opt new notes in payment ef the old ones and tlie Bank had 
•aid it would do so if that was satisfactory to the Great 
Northern Eefining Cea^any»* that Uie Bank would disoount 
the new no tor if the (ireat Nortbom defining Company would 
aaeapt them from the liibner Cil Company. Be further testi* 
fied that the plaintiff refused to aeeept new notes but said 
he would oonfeae Judgment that day on the note then due; that 
h$ (the defendant) told the plaintiff that meant ruin to the 
ili bner Oil Oonyaay and "that th(» only way out of it was to 
kaTo the notes renewed;* that they (the Hibaer Oil Coaynny) 
were willing to glTo them (the Oreat Northern Refining Cooqpaay) 
the dioeount they had of i>red the Bank; that the plaintiff 
first said that the notes oould not be extended for any oon* 
sideration smaller than a thousand dollars but after somo 



iJS i«c-9d 




.ma .ft^i^irx.'t'.ki 

conTerMkti9B "X r««o«lTed mn ultimsitun from «at« ^hatford un- 
less I made that #&00, ihs first note voul4 go to ocafessien 
of judgment, and th9 sthsrs would follow Xt wot peid": that 
ths dsfsndant th«» said, *'Uy n&m^vaiy would no^ allow ny pay- 
ing thla tmish out and the only way it can be dono. If I givo 
you aty personal oh«oic for it,* 'fhis was agrssable to thm 
plaintiff and the defeiidant asked the plaintiff if be waatsd 
the oheflic drawn to his order or that of the oonpany and tlis 
plaintiff said it made no diff^^renoe, that h@ ownetii 92;:^ of 
the stOflAc, that the defendant better ractke it out to plain- 
tiff *s order and that was done. 

7he areat lorthem Refining Oosi|iftqy did forbear 
Gonf easing judgment on the notes that were due, and new judg- 
ment notes were giren in li«tt of them at the time the defeai* 
ant gaTe the plaintiff the c^edK here Rued upon. Soae six 
w«elcs or two w»nths later judgment was oonfessed on the new 
notes. The defendant contends thet there was no oeneidertion 
given liy the plaintiff to the defendant for the ehede, inas- 
muoh as the Groat northern Refining Cosq^any noTsr proraissd 
to forbaar oonfessiag judgment on the notes at the time su«fe 
ferhMiranoe was requested by the defendant when he said his 
SM^pany would be ruined if judg^sent was then taken and that 
the mere foot that the 6r««tt Hortham Refining Conq^any did 
forbear to oonfess judgnsnt, unless it was preceded hy a 
proaise fro?i them as a oonsideration for th« oheok, is not 

¥his eentention is not sound. An agrs»tent to for- 
baar is a good oonsi deration. Morgan v. Pi^rk WationsA Bank . 
*4 111. App, 6fl3; Bel tine C»M«i osl & Manufacturing Co. v. 


j&uIfT. IS2 111. App. 303. 1% ttftn mmk* no 41ff«iene« tluit the 
BOtee whi^ ir- r« Uu«« ir<»re th« property of Ute K«flaiag Ceapwny 
and that the proalae to forbear vMia made, net Vy the ReflalBS 
Con^iRny, biit by itft president and that the eheok wae dravn to 
the or4er of the latter. It is «tlear that the plaintiff po«»> 
eeeed the requlaite author! t^^ to make the prvadne to forbear* 
OB behalf of his ooapamy, and it is net contended that e«i<di 
promise vas not fulfilled. The defendant ehews by his own 
testlisony that, it meant a great deal to his company, th«» debtor, 
and to hla aa one of its offlO'^rs, if eonfeteion on its JjttdjE* 
sent notes eould be pri»Tented 2*.t the time thc>y f^ll due. The 
plaintiff a^X'eed to forbear taking the notion that vas threat* 
ened in oonsideration of #500 s^ndaocordlnely the ohec^ in ques« 
tion •»«.» giTOB and the threatened action wae yrcvf^ted. There 
was good coneidv'^ration for the Qhe<i^. 

The Judgnaent of thi& Munieipal Jourt in rereraed and 
indigent it entered her*' for $60C with interest at 6% frea 
Septeaber 5, 1918, the due date of the instrument sued upon 
(111, statutes ohap. 74 eeo. 2.) or a total anount o; ^^KS'^.l^, 

TAn.(B, y,J« ASi> 0*00)fNOR^ J. C JfCUE. 

84 . 25338 

jriOOIXK jr. UOlai, and HABBY ) 

s, ixmm, ) 

\ ) 

Plal1|Uff« in Error, ) 

i if BRHOR W 

▼, ^f /) MtmXOlPAL 30liHT 


I«r.„.u„t in S^r. 52 1 9 I .A. 6 5 6 

MR, JUSTICf' THCMBOH delivered the opinicn of th« 


flM plaintiffs, (Owners of a buB^aXov, 1»rought this 
a«tiea aeainst ihe ietnnd&nt, their tenant, meaklng to r«* 
eoT«r 1126.97, the value of eertain house fumishlnga thejir 
olaiaod she had unlawfully appropriated and certain lumber 
and fire weed thr^ elaimed she had improperly ueed* 'Xhe 
iaeuee were eulnsitted to a iWFy and they found for the plain* 
tiff and aoeeseed hie damages at the nvm of one dollar. Plain* 
tiffs awTed for a new trial, claiming that the evidr^nce showed 
that they were entitled to substantial damages. Xhe motion 
was OTorruled and Judgment entered on the verdict. To reveres 
the Jnidgmeat, the plaintiffs have cued out this writ of orror. 

Ths only question involved h*^re ie whether the evi- 
denee supports the verdiot and judgment. The bill of excep- 
tions contained in the record, eoneiets of a statement of 
faots which is not certified as a statement of all the evi- 
denee submitted in the trial oourt. In that state of the 
reoord tiiis oourt ie bound to assume that suffieient evidence 
was submitted to support the verdict ir>nd warrant the trial 
oourt in overruling the motion for a new trial and entering 

afeeaa * S'JP- 




Jtt4K»«nt on the TerAlot. Hor«oT(»r, we haT« examined the 
stctteaent of faots as contained in the record, and in our 
opinion it supports the verdict. 

The Judgment of the Municipal Court of Chicago 
is affinaed. 




a i ft Ic: o 

#9 • 

i^^.lii SQOyUIX. 


mmiBtrnmsR afAie«i,Vtt«« mm 
SHI 0400 urm tH*Mm^ Qim» 

^cts oomtif. 

I.A. 656 

mi. jusYJia ' twrnrnm d«iiv«r*4 th* Q»i»ion «f 

%h» <9eurt« 

from « il*«r«« tfimiftsiiaf hi» Vill f«r en fta«>«mi>^nt» f^r 

on«{>lAl»ftni« AHA th« 4«f«a4imi», ahri«t«^h»r mm»v uM 
MMlvw x«Aii»h« •aii#jr»4 into « p«rlM*r«]iif «;Cr«<^««it. la 

fth»r« of ^n« n*«»«»»yy f«iiA»» »adi «l]»ir« Jtn ih« profit* iJi 
ii««ir4fti»«« trith th«: •auHtnt «f fuadft »• •e«tritaut««. Tim 
«eBtjr»«i pr«fvi««d UMt ii wk» te r«»«iti In fall for9« for 
ihfi p«ri«4i of OHO yMur *«al«»fi 9\>h»rmitMi amtaRjJLjr «tleo«lT«4k * 
Tlio liUl fwrtlior ftll»««^ thKi t&f««r 4li« oxoeiiUoii of %hlw eon* 
tx«o«» iiio yartttorohiy mmI« a 40«tr»«it wi%ls tte Clt^y of tmioofl* 
for ilM %r«iioj»ert«U9ii of lio «ttvlMs« fnm oarteia leadiac; 
poittto io n r«4ttoUt>f» plt^nt aii<l ]iro«HMl«4 Is I i« yorfonuuioo 

in •%tt»l .sh«T*a* «iiU UiAt th« j^a^jrim^fhkp clIm «at«r#4 into • 
MiiW»ot vith iiit |U^raI Trftnsit <;«M|»«agr for th« pur«h*«« 9( 

•My* viili ttusdtid •«•«!( «»eaiaile% %is #eil«OiO, in KhAjr** of 
tlMi Umqt ««r« i« Hold tto«« f»r Um l>4m*flt ef &i»^ |^ftrtn»r«hifi 

Um) <$ftrp«rttti&ii «»• n^inftjr ttc«d to ijrAnMi«t %h« tniKlit*** of ihe 

Hmmb** ia iKiliaXf af iii9 ]parlii«)rslily* 

1% aaa aU«««A furi%i«r iltat mmitf al&i»«d ta !)• iha 
•ala a«««r af ih« garlwiffa %ti«ia«»» 9f Ui» pturtA^ruhip nR4 aaa 
aypvayrlaUac aU Um iNraf&tB af ih« Uuaiaaaft %e hiasalf aad 
tlsat» «ItliDti«h r«^a«tt%a4 te 49 »a» 1m» r*faB«<i t« tit;miin% ta 
aaai^aia»at far angr af aaid praCliti that a««b af tha part* 
aara a«r« aaUUa4 ta a third af ttia profits ef the tmainaaai 
ilaai «lv« *aa«yarta«rBhip Wsineaa* had a«T»r 1»aaa diavolTad 
asM aa «atUaRiaat ^f i% ha< arar Iknto aadas that, at tlit %mjf 

"M J 


luMl «T«]r }tmen a«u»$ t,hRi it)* ]»«irta«r*hi|^ h^A n«v«r 4a:fiir<»4 

•41 amupftfcag «o«^l4%ituMit. »ti^ «%wir«i of tM<?' p«rt»»3r»liip buei* 
««•• »• It night h* mhtftm hm w»e &Qtiti«4 i9» 

til* fivia«iie« 4i««l«««a %hi^ ]»«rtai«r»liip Mmirttttt, 
tlm Uttwi vf «hi«li w«r9 «• ••% forth is ih« liill Of oPOtipliUJlt* 

Mid ttine ft eofitniot t»«tir*«ii tlm iMirtfittrahl; ii«4 t.h« llojr«JL Xiw»* 
•it «3««v«Bgr wb«r«1isr ih« ]|^»r%««r»(ii|i ftnira€<>Nt to iMqr •srtAiii 
iMMit* wK lwurv*» t9t wNl«h iMi^«}}te v«r« t9 %»• •»•• irxtftti^* 
inc into 1^« fwup 1919 « ^lAiieh «Mr hityimA th« jr««ir for whiok 
titft ^mrtaiorsliiy ••• •s^g;««ii»«Nt« 

ffew •Ti««ii«i« farthttr di«aleft«^d « <»»Atjrftot l»«tt»««B 
tlm fAirta«y«m]^ an4 th« ^i%^ %t Oklostfi AKt«tt £N»0««b«r 1, 
!•!•• f«r Ui« ••rxyittfi ftf is«slMkg« frwi jMnuuey 1» ISlt to 
lNi««»1>«r 31a 1916* Mid ttl»« « aeiitr««t l»«t«»t« anMir* 
*m»mk]0um tMA coIa •uxTiTiiig i>arta«r<* mt %h» |Mirta«r«liii]i» «s4 
tli«) aity Af c:m<»#», f*r t^« enrtylng sf «ftrlHis« frost JftiWAiy 
1* 1917 tft £»«9«ttV«r 91* 191T« tltfX^ «etttr«i9t va^t s^Kle pur«t»- 
•»t it » l»i< oriKiinaij •itteitt«d liar t>>* ^•'tiifffvlidp* vhioli 
%h» •ofttj^ot m9% fortb. lm<i mmnkfgn*^ aU tiM rieHi* of ti»» 
|Mirt»*rs l» JKttMir •• svunriving pmrUtrnw, I'liore ««• « furtlM'r 
•ontrftot b«tw»«tt ^iiusMr eM4 th« ^UIjr •f C3ii«M«» f«r th« «»irt!]r*» 


tiM Citjr «ai« •!•« in iNsOting; its j^a^rm^n^ «ma i,im%, h« la4liTi4* 
tmlly «iiie*ft«di la Airiigrlac tto^ |^«rlMig« frsa JwuMiyy 1, 1917 
io aoa* iiaMi ia Jl4^ %f %im\ yimstt «i vMnte ti»e his i»4lTid« 
uiUL s€>nt.ni9t wi&h Ui^ 01 tt^ f»r U» oangrlac of ih« ^rftrlme* 
for ilMtt y«*r, «!* eai«reii intttt &n4 U»t it «».a 4ft i«4 IwalE 
to Jfamsaty !• 3.91T* 

Hm» «vi4 ae« farther di&sloocd • sontxAot boivMW 
onqM-oiimiit itolwMtim on^ tJeK" d«f«ii ft«i ieHeAiuil^ mi pftjrti«»« of 
tl»e fir«t iMuri witl @RyaM»r, »• 9Artgr of t^ s«6eB4S iHuri, t>a<t«r 
4a%« of ireVr%Mur3r 23« 1917, whli^ r^^^tod Vm f«»Ati«B ef 
tlu» ^artaorsM^ Ra4 pr0Yi4«4 timt, *it toolayg ihp 4««lr«» imr* 
INis* aB«l lat«at. fteverelljF ismS Jolntlir, id 4ic«oiv« •mX4, och> 

«l»M»lT«4.* ¥M* 09atr»et furih«r reelti^ tlmi flotaMiHi «»« 
MeAsfth, "in eon«i4«rfttica of deUv«nr to e«eri. of iS^COQ 
|Mil4 1^ ei^iitol «t»di of tho Chi ««• Sivor ^rmmmSmr OeapwMqr* 
o oorpcx»Uoa ae* Wiac oi^poniooNA ai^«ir t^ I«fcvo of Illlttoio* 
* • * 40 ^»jr8«ia« ^11, Hm& 4«liYor onto HoMor oil ri^bt, utlc 
«ad iBt«r««t «o no* iiavo or aojf h«T« la Bind to ih« oopftrtaoroMy 
kaom aftu doaerilHNi am tlao ^lkie«i;o Mvor Irtiasfor ^afi«^« to* 
SOtl»7 with all rli,lit» tltlo and laturest «w au^ h^YO ia aagr 
aad all of tiie ao^ota, goo4 will asitl yro^ortjr of th« »aiO 
Cliloaco HiTor fraanfer SOayaMy** ¥lirra ««r« alao i«tro4aoo« 
ia OTia^^QM, roooipto oigaod Iqt )ioAiiah and a»l—i,w whmT*\^ 
oa^ a«toao«ie<IS04 r^<3«ipi froR iteaor of $t,ftce.«T, ^iac 
"iMOraoiit In full af say «hftro ©f prof i to oara«4 \ff Chioa^O 
HlTor Traacfer Coa^asijr fros» Svammxy I, 1916 m» to w»d iaeltt4» 
i^C 4ato liar<N»f (Vobraaysr 23, 1M7) th# »«ld aMOaal of 42S<»3.87 

0»flp«aar iHi* S3r« <iAy of y«bruR>r» ]^17*« 

fm »SjKfi«dL««tt#)i of th« <»i^?TstJi«a «&» ttl«« diss* 
«lo»«d lir !>» «¥iSime«« i)ft« ^rrtifieate of ^n^let* oxs«i^»»» 

0wt4«m9m alfto 4i«aUia4Ni «l»ttt«« of tlw te«r4 of 4iJ'«'Ote]i'o of 
%h« oorporfttiott ^pprovias «<^(^ aacc^tii^ «t«rtiiia frro$>4^rtjr« 
"•««•« «iid off«x«4 biy Christ toplwr MamftX', ^r« in p<qr»«ai of 
otedK fttt^erilM»4 for »« follovo, neba«ni 2^ »lt»rt«: M«AMCh, Sar. 
ftO »]bftr*»; is«Aa«li» Jr, 15 e^^i^«a; Ma««r •Xr. IS otermt ttiaid 
Smor $r«, »0 otmreo, "o^acuntm^ in lOl U |15.C0C», li i« not 
Amur frois tlio roo»rtf« Imi {^rssygsAbljr tlM ^eportj tlao turiMMl 
itt to the oer9#rfttl9s ty %am»r eoneist«4i of Uae Wat* and texigos 
vldttli hi34 iMNm Mi»i«ii«<i to ttia %s^ the o«Kj>l*ia«at i^otmyan tuiA 
tl» dofOA^ftSt lUMMik Ui4 «rhi#i Im^ !»•*» tl»o pfvp«rtir of tlM 

flid «vl4^qt«« furtlaAX' sJaOK* Ui« aooo^oitiaft ha4 of 
tto p«rt]t«roMi» tottslttoeo at t)»8 tAtt« of tho <li«iMi»l«ti«>« of tli« 
f>ikrtneTM>!BAp, Tfrnt tMe it s^^jMPsro tl»t oa^ of i*i» ^ortaom 
ori^j^lly «dT«a««d $^€4«6e ma^ tHot mat^r imd fttfr^itoodi. froai 
tin* to tlMfi. ftscioito ftgsr<ic«tij^ #14««d7.8S, Thlft «»• <l«ljr 
r«9«ti<i to Mm* Ttoe profit* of tbo f^r^fnnTtehXp 3i»&xA.n%i»a to 
^7,&5S,«2 f^t %h» tl»« of tHo ^IreoletioB imd tn4» w«o 4iYl4«4 
equolljr Wt««*?tt tlift tH:«c psrtnero. Xi 99]?<im.Ttt tliftt th# eitjr 
paid scthlRK to thf i»«.rtf»«raMp «siiaer tiu»ir «>oetre><:t u»l^ii 

ilea ve« (»i^ftHl«4Mi «ji4 tJM' dlsii6l»iien cMpre^^^^t ef F«br«»x3r 
83, 1917 ««L« ex«eut«4. BslOMMn i«Hitifl«d thii&t ih«i thr«« 
9artn«r» Maid • «o«r«r«m«ii At that il«« «nd tiwii ii w«£ oatfeyw 
•tM»4 ihfct yie «orpor*ti<»a mi« tc "eocitlBu^ In b«isia«S8 thm 
mmmm &• tta^«r %!»» QepftrtR^rfiMp}* that MeAavh 8«.la tiiAi *«L2 
•ur iai^i^r^stc wfrald hm Ui« mmc' in tite «Rwittfiiiqr «te it ^m.* in 
\Me (SO|Mirui«r*M9*» stad thmt ^eAasfe «Kplsia«4 i^t lh«i f9naa» 
tion of ib« ottx^orisiica «ae adviealde to tlm% 4Jb«>y would £«% 
•aay froB ]|^r«»aal iiabillty, Umt^it teeUfi»a th^t there was 
ao ««ntie« aatfo of tmy iadividttal Xia1»liitj^ luna Utat b« did 
aat iMNir avQr oueh r«%&tHrs »^4i!> ^ ^oAaolb Ismi th»>t the latter 
«t«t«4 tifeit it vft« ailljT for tbmm, %& aako a fttrth)^!* <a»utw*&i 
with t^ Cit,)r- l»9««»a»« it would aet j^ay aoijftljiittss tl^mt eaz%as» 
lH»d ¥«oa tejulod for olevea s^atho aa<i Uu*/ H«td re«$^iT«d aotMags 
that tJMy did net kaetv vliotter tb^ aoula g«t Kdj^ m»a«y; tlj&t 
ifauoor iiad edvaaoad all tJ^ mem&f a»d it «ao aot right for his 
to ¥««y thet Wrdoa and ftuggcetatt tlMt if thejf voat farther a 
eor^oratioa oteald l>«t oxigstaisad aad that thegr »heal<i And^aYor 
to fiat »(Mie of tk# paa^aagor Woiaooa boiavaa thm mwiaioip«l 
Pior aad Liaoola BmA, SIia arid^soa •imiHt tbftt aftar tli« eer» 
i»oriitio« «»e organiaad* »on« offort «aa aada to aoi|aif« a oaall 
ptkmm*9^0r st#jHa«r but ih<^ ^roj<>9t fall tlKroagh* 

Bolanaa farther ti^otififtd that after Vnn ergsiaixa* 
iloQ of iter oor]poratioaa %ivr- boat* and 'b^ tranofarr«d to it» 
oontiau«d i« th« ^arl^a^ge OftrTylaf oervioo «sd tho ba«in»«o «*m 
eondaeiad ao fora«rljr* Wvmw doiac tisie iaaida imwk aaa iiolsMaa 

tto# «t3i«l<« wtvki %}m% in SuXjf XW^ ii«Mui«li ••rtt for hin «»4 

ilMiM it fron lii«a %m% te (il«Aiuik) Aid Tm% liktt %hatx saUoii 
an A ih(k% ilM •»»!»»«% l»«loiic«4 to U%it vomftagr, wa^ thiii tM« 
•ittrt«4 He)»MMi i« iair«sU|^U«c« Mmmy ter>Ufit« ti»«t i«» 
•r Uar«« wtmkm *f%«r t)i« «x»8aii»ii. ftf Ut» 4itt*eliiU$ii «4pr««(» 
a«itt ftnd Uw ttffgikslmiUs^n of U)« w»ri'«3rft«i«i9 i^^ UPt« le»wi of 
to sKudToii of frt«4lt %» HilnwMi, tli« Ittttor oiUMr t# IdM bAH^ 
ttokod Mn to tAk« Mt otoOk ond eivo him $e««'>CO siitf timt ht 
onijr 9tm HohioTm ott«« «ft«r thot uritam a»taiMni imum U» him 
maA vmiVmI to ooll Ma o ««»«• MtoAfioli «&o not ia Uio «itar 
ftt t&« ti»o of Ui« hoarittg onA <li<i oot tct«tify« 

Tlio %ill ia,i«co4 ii»it]M»]r fjroitdi aor fiiilitr« of «o»» 
oiO«rotioA «a4 4id «s»i 001^ %h» oottiay ooido of Uto o«jroo«MM»i 
of JTolunHisy as. i9i9« if amoor im» «imM th* toMryoo o»d !»o1mi 
Wloagiaa: to th» otrjierotioii in iho «x«o«tiOA of « eontrooi 
for tte wupiariiic of goiiitaMie wHioli h« iAOiYi<ta«a.ljr o«t«r«4 into 
«it<> tiM GiV of caai«9t«o, lH» fiMig^ 1»« lioliio to oooo%nit for tti*^ 
MOO to Um oor^oroti^l wma ^iMuma amy haTO oort&iii righto 
itt tlioi oomiootiwi 00 • otoolcholdor in %t^ oorporotioa* I» 
ottr O0liiio« Ui« fxnaiac «»<' ^)t** oheutieollor t^Mit tho ^Krtnorohiy 
heui, to««a 4i«»oiYod or4 a finoi « oootmtiiie of iU Imvioooo $nXjf 
]Mi4 Itgr tuo portaoro* io fully 0ttpj»orto4 ^ tlio wrid«tnoo. In 
t)i« olNiMioo of fvo»4 or nietoko ouoii o 4io»oliiti&« «a4 oooo^mt* 
ia« i» liiMiiAg oa ti5«f i».*ra«», iaSJISft ▼* la2aMlSfi&* "^ iii- 
App. 237; 220 XIX, 344; ^olyiy^ooff T« i^^ttlX* ^^ ^^^* ^^*« 

«o fiB4 ae orror In tiw r«oor4 mm4 %la^r*frm tAo 
4«4sako»t of %h» tayorior Ooturt io «ffii»o4» 

fAZL^« 1P»J. ASii c*di'S»<;^H» J, c«..*ii:;^H« 

113 - 25567 

ALPKONS H. GITS and Rm.I J.(^?3, ) 

copartners, doing business t^a ) 


Plaintiffs in J^rcr, ) 

▼8. \ / ' ) niPCriT COUHT 01? 


Def en daunts ijl Error, ) 



The complainants. Gits Brothers I'anufacturing Co., filed 
their bill in equity, seeking the rescission of a contract for 
the purchase rf certain land, and the return of the iucney tiiey 
had paid under the contract and the cancellation of certain 
notes they had executed in connection with the purchase, on the 
ground of fraud. Demurrers interposed by the defendants were 
sustained and the bill was dismissed as to the defendant ic- 
Elrcy, for -Afant of equity, while complainants were given leave 
to amend as to the defendant Ullrich, but they elected to abide 
by their bill, whereupon fae bill was dismi33ed as to that de- 
fendant also. 

Complainants sued cut a writ of error from the 3il* 
prerae court on the theory that a freehold was involved. That 
court held otherwise and transferred the cause tc this court. 

The complainants signed a written proposition to 
buy the land in question from Ullrich for ^6,850, of which 
$5,000 was to be paid upon tender of a warranty deed and a 
Guarantee lolicy and the remainder in monthly instalments of 
$600 each. This proposition recited that complainants purchased 
the premises on condition that Ullrich "procure for us an agree- 
ment or a letter from the leoples Gas Light & Coke Company, that 
they will furnish gas on or before Kay I, 1918," and further 

that lie "procure for us an agreement or letter"f roci the City of 
Chicago for the furnishing of a water main, and further that he 
"negotiate with the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad" for the ex- 
tension of a switch track ao as tc serve the preiuisea in ques- 

The ccfliplainants delivered the written proposition 
to Ullrich and at the same time paid him i^500 as earnest money. 
Later a deed to the property was duly delivered to coaplainpn ta 
and accepted by them, at which time they discovered that thej 
title had been in l'c7<!]roy. At this time the complainants pala 
the further suun of $4,500 and executed nnd delivered their notes 
for the bnlMnce, Ullrich did not furnish the desibred assurances 
as to gns, water and switch track services, when the deal was 
closed, saying that' it took time to accomplish those things, 
petitions had to be prepared and other formalities complied with, 
that he had been in the real estate business in Chicago for 
many years and his word was good and that if complainants would 
accept the deed and pay the cash required and execute and deliver 
their notes for the balance, he would procure contracts for 
gas, water and switch track service as soon as possible - 
certainly before the first note fell due. Complainants alleged 
in their bill tliat tiiey relied on Ullrich's representaticns and 
paid their mcnev and delivered their notes, but that he had never 
done as he agreed. 

There were a nxjurnber of causes of demurrer interposed 
by the defendants, but in our view of the case we need refer to 
but one or two of them. The question of whether a partnership 
existed between the defendants is immaterial. Assuming that 
there was, the demurrers were nevertheless properly sustained 
for the bill disclosed that complainants had a complete and 
adequate remedy at law. furthermore, the bill fails to show 

any fraud or mierepresentation on the part of Ullrich, nasuming, 
of course, the truth of all allegations it contains. Fraud and 
misrepresentation, to warrant relief in equity, must h?ive to do 
with facts, in exist'^nce or represented, 03 "being in existence. 
The things relied upon hy ccmplainants in their hill were solely 
promises by Ullrich to dc something in the future. T^en if we 
assume that at the time Ullrich made the promises he had no 
intention of fulfilling them, there was not such fraud and mis- 
representation as would give complainants the rif^ht to relief 
which they seek in equity. Kill er v. 3u 1 1 iff , 241 111. 521; 
Shamb erg v. Stearns , 178 111. App . 587; Feithley v, Ijutual ^ Lif e 
In 3 . Co . , 271 111. 584. Adequate relief, however, could be had 
in a court of law, where they might sue for damages suffered by 
reason of Ullrich's breach. The damnges suffered, if any, were 
easily capable of proof in an action at law in which respect the 
case at bar differs from the first case above cited. 

In our opinion, the ccntroct to purchase became fully 
executed when the deed was accepted by complainants and the money 
wr>s paid and the notes delivered. Complainants had engfi^ed to 
but the Innd en certain conditions, naTi^ly, that tjiirich "prcotfTe* 
certain assurances for gas, water and switch track service. He 
had not done as agreed when the deed was tendered. The condi- 
tions whicn ccmplainante had attached tc their offer of pur- 
c}riase were conditions precedent. Under the terras of their pro- 
posal, complainantB might have refused to accept the deed and 
pay their money or execute and deliver their notes, until the 
desired assurances were furnished, as stipulated, but they chose 
to waive those conditions and closed the transaction, relying on 
Ullrich's promise to procure the contracts for the services 


nt ail 

; ik .III 

. : --./JtO ©TV 

■\j9noi2 'iil-f bna uttfBnlAXqmot, 

vfitrt riotlr 
- . ■ . ■b^'r*bn»'# €:■■ 

-01(1 "X-t^ri^' "ao ai3Brt»;f oda -zai)! bsooicr a«f 

no ife 

«©oivt»e c 

desired as soon as possible. If inirich has fpiled to fulfill 
hia pi-oir:ise, the conpl ain^r ts h^ye the usual renedies at law, 
but they may not file a "bin in equity seeking, hs they do here, 
a rescission of their contTa.ct, on the ground of fraud and ?jis- 
r epr e s en tat i c n . 

We find no error in the record and therefore the 
decree cf the Circuit court is affirmed. 


Taylor, I . J., and O'Connor, J., concur. 


Vd'T' ;^6381.\ 


.Alil.133 fXc 




.!!D?HiCK fi. BAHfLgTm& Co., 

ABmAL mod 



219I.A. 651' 

m. JUsriCK fiiOSJSOS dellTarea the opinloa of the ooart, 

. the plaintiff, r.olcorfl, brought t- is action for tb« 
ooavereloa of oertaia property whioh He olsimed haa been destroyed 
by and oarried aira^ with the eoneent of the defendant, kt the 
close of the plaintiff® eridenoe the eourt gave the jury a per- 
emptory inatruotian to find for the defendsuat. Following that 
rerdlot, the ootxrt entered Judgment for the ooets ftgalnst the plain- 
tiff, to rererse Mhieh he haa perfected thla appeal. 

Certain Isnd wsa leased by the Pullman Land Aaeoola* 
tion, owner, to Q«e Qwathmey, ae tenant. Subsequently Coloord 
aoqalred the rlghta of Gwathraey, baying the baildinge which had 
been erected, and later he took two euoceeding eeta of leaaee on 
toe property (in two pareels) from the X-and Aeaociation, the 
laat onea expiring February 28, 1917. The property ooatained 
certain fencing oonalating of poate and wire and an old building 
which had been repaired and lisprofed by the different tenants. 
There were also eertain farming out-houaea. There wa» fcorae farm 
machinery on the property. 

The leaeeeto the plaintiff eont«laed his nereoment 
not to "underlet eald premlsea or any part thereof, or mi^eign 
thia leaee without the vrlttea aaaent", of the landlord. By 

the terms of the !©«»«» the landlord reservad *'th« right to 
enter u: on the premleee for the purpoeee of making uns klnA 
of ttse they ^ay de£i|re, at any ^f-l-^e during the term of thie 
le&t^e, axid in oaee of aucli entr^ the rental of the imbiber of 
aeree so need by the parties of the firet part ahall be de- 
doeted," in which erent th« plaintiff tea&it agreed he xvouTd 
"a&ke no olaim vtoatsooTer for lose of orope, fertllizlAg of 
the land, or any other olsln," agaiast the landlord. 

Hhw Piillraan Land Atisoolatloa eubeoqaently eoa- 
▼eyed the land by warrwaty deed to the Ghloago Title ds Trust 
Company, which held it In trust under an agreeraeat with Fred- 
erick ii. Bartlett & Co^npany, ivhlch in effect waa Bartlett, 

Without obtaining any concent fi-on the ovmer, as 
the leacec proTided, the plaintiff sublet all the property 
bat 5 vacant acres to one Peterson, reserTlag the right tc 
the nae of part of one of the ont buildlnge. 

The plaint iff recelTCd a written notice fro's the 
Pulltjsan land Aeaociatioa, oader date of October 31, 1S16, ad- 
Tising him that the property In q[ne»tioa "hms been tsold, and cald 
leasee are thereby terminated. Xn ^iccerdaaoe with the tearau* 
cad conditions contained in eald leaeee, you are hereby requoet- 
ed to iiseicdlately vacate said * * • property aad delirer up 
pcBccfision thereto. Upon so doinf, we will rebate to ^ou the 
rental for the unexyired term of said leacee." '?he plaintiff 
retained pCBseeaion of the property until after his le?iaeB ex- 
pired, ?ebrttary 2ft, 1917. Me testified he told the retsreoac 
they might remain on the property until April, 1'17, and they 


fllA ao» 3o«netl?ne in liareh or pril th^ asfenAant bfigaa opera- 
tions on the property, lookiiig tovjard i^t? BubdlTlslon and sale, 
iie begaa the ereotlon at a amell briek buliaiof to be uaed ^m i^ 
of flee* sidewalks were laid, ^bout thl» ti^te the fenee poety 
were pulled ap and the wire m&& rolled Vip, Moat of the poete 
Aleappeared* the budldingei were torn do^m fi.n& r».ocit. If not all, 
of the lofflber dleappeared* The yarloue pleoes of farm maohla- 
ery oa the pre'^isee alse dlsappesred. It Is for the Talue of 
this property th«t the plaintiff broijght thla emit a^alnat the 
defendant • 

!?het defeBdant'e entployees took dowa the feneee 
and bulldlagB le aot denied* The plaintiff 'a erlclence faile 
to show that the fenees a.>id buildlagB were resno